[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121119190105.GL15971@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:01:05 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
Cc: serge.hallyn@...onical.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
nhorman@...driver.com, tgraf@...g.ch, davem@...emloft.net,
lizefan@...wei.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.8] netcls_cgroup: implement hierarchy
support
Hello, Daniel.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 02:59:58PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Sorry to bring this up again: how should to root cgroup behave? If
> the ultimate goal to have only one single hierarchy then I would
> assume it is important that the semantic for all controllers are the
> same. As you pointed out the networking controllers are kind of a
> strange beast in the zoo of the cgroup controllers. But still I
> would assume that all root controllers behave the same. memcg or
> cpu* are not expected to do any work in the root cgroup.
I think the implemented behavior is fine. memcg or cpu* don't do
anything on root cgroup as it doesn't make much (or any) sense. For
net_prio and cls, I don't see any reason to treat root cgroup
differently and how that would cause conflict when mounted together
with other controllers. So, yeah, things seem okay to me.
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