[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120222180112.GB32694@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:01:12 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies
Hey, Peter.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 02:30:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> FWIW I'm all for ripping the orthogonal hierarchy crap out, I hate it
> just about as much as you do judging from your write-up.
I just don't get why it's there. Maybe, there can be some remote use
cases where orthogonal hierarchies can be useful but structuring whole
cgroup around that seems really extreme.
> I'm not sure on your process hierarchy pie though, I rather like being
> able to assign tasks to cgroups of my making without having to mirror
> that in the process hierarchy.
The only question is whether we want to allow cgroup hierarchy to be
completely orthogonal from process tree structure, which I don't think
is a good idea. It shouldn't affect trivial use cases. If not
explicitly configured, all tasks would live in a single root cgroup -
much like every process would belong to the same session if nobody
does setsid() since boot (or container).
I don't know how the implementation would turn out and it may as well
stay separate as it is now but I still think the topology should match
pstree.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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