[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1331659918.18960.87.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:31:58 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 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, Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies
On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 18:25 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 10:10 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Implementing hierarchy is a pain and is expensive at run time.
>
> Yeah, suck it up :-)
>
> I would really rather we mandate one implementation standard for
> controllers for the sake of consistency and uniformity. A direct result
> of doing away with the multiple hierarchy crap is that all controllers
> are co-mounted. Allowing differences like this just doesn't make any
> sense.
>
> So either we drop full hierarchy support from all controllers or we
> deprecate and remove all non-hierarchical controllers.
>
> I'm fine with either, but I'm not fine with with the half-arsed
> solutions proposed here.
Note that before this whole discussion I was under the impressions it
was mandated for a controller to be fully hierarchical. I'm very much
surprised people were allowed to merge incomplete controllers like that.
--
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