[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830901191752o53926bdbve593301aeff7330f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:52:36 -0800
From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To: matthltc@...ibm.com
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Matthew Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
> My feeling is this should be a signal subsystem rather than a NOOP
> subsystem. Then, if users want the grouping for something besides
> signaling, it doesn't matter if they don't issue any signals via the
> signal.send file. Also, I think Paul's suggestion would be just as
> useful for a signal subsystem.
The signal subsystem is similar to the "no-op" subsystem in that
neither of them actually need any state - in principle, it could be
useful to attach a signal subsys to multiple mounted hierarchies, to
provide signal semantics for each of them.
Would it make sense to allow a class of subsystem that explicitly has
no state (or at least, has no state that has a global meaning on the
machine), so that it can be multiply-mounted?
Paul
--
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