[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090109153219.dd8c153d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:32:19 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:26:46 -0800
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> 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.
>
Oh, it seems better idea. Then, we need no configs and no additional subsys.
Thank you for a hint. I'll check how I can do it.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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