[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170322145225.nsmnvknla752e6yx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:52:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: lizefan@...wei.com, hannes@...xchg.org, mingo@...hat.com,
pjt@...gle.com, luto@...capital.net, efault@....de,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, lvenanci@...hat.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET for-4.11] cgroup: implement cgroup v2 thread mode
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:39:58PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> And yes, having to consider views is new and a direct consequence of
> this new optional feature. But I don't see how its a problem.
>
So aside from having (RO) links in thread groups for system controllers,
we could also have a ${controller}_parent link back to whatever group is
the actual parent for that specific controller's view.
So then your B's memcg_parent would point to A, not T.
But I feel this is all superfluous window dressing; but if you want to
clarify the filesystem interface, this could be something to consider.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists