[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikqMg+Syf3YooE9PtWD-S2nRemVcOitivUFU3OG@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 21:38:12 -0700
From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To: Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
Cc: david@...g.hm, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arve@...roid.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org, pavel@....cz, rjw@...k.pl,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, swetland@...gle.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org> wrote:
>
> Thinking about it.. I don't know much about cgroups, but I think a
> process can only be in one cgroup at a time.
A thread can only be in one cgroup in each hierarchy at one time. You
can mount multiple cgroups hierarchies, with different resource
controllers on different hierarchies.
>
> b) you can't use cgroup for other purposes anymore. I.e. if you want to
> have 2 groups that each only have half of the memory available, how
> would you then integrate the cgroup-ignore-for-idle-approach with this?
You could mount the subsystem that provides the "ignore-for-idle"
support on one hierarchy, and partition the trusted/untrusted
processes that way, and the memory controller subsystem on a different
hierarchy, with whatever split you wanted for memory controls.
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