[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4966EEDD.5070204@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:29:49 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:32 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Motivation: Simply classify Applications by cgroup
>> When using cgroup for classifying applications, some kind of "control" or
>> "account" subsys must be used. For flexible use of cgroup's nature of
>> classifying applications, NOOP is useful. It can be used regardless of
>> resource accounting unit or name spaces or some controls.
>> IOW, NOOP cgroup allows users to tie PIDs with some nickname.
>
> I agree that the idea is useful. But to me it seems to a bit
> artificial that you still have to mount some kind of subsystem purely
> to get the grouping, and that you can only have one such grouping.
>
> I think I'd prefer the ability to mount a cgroups hierarchy without
> *any* subsystems (maybe with "-o none"?) which would give you a
> similar effect, but without you needing to know about a special no-op
> subsystem, and would allow you to have multiple "no-op" groupings.
>
Agreed, but it can't work by just removing the checking in cgroup mount option,
I just tried it:
static int parse_cgroupfs_options(char *data,
struct cgroup_sb_opts *opts)
{
...
- if (!opts->subsys_bits)
- return -EINVAL;
...
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists