Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:57:09 -0700 | From | Max Krasnyanskiy <> | Subject | Re: boot cgroup questions |
| |
Paul Jackson wrote: > Max K wrote: >> btw I still do not see the "incompatibility" argument. > > It's similar, perhaps, to what happens when we try to accomodate two > architectures in one file system, with things like: > /x86_64/bin > /ia64/bin > replacing the well known /bin. > > Things break. Apps such as the major batch schedulers (PBS and LSF) > and various other tools and scripts buried here and there have come > used to developing particular cpuset hierarchies over the last couple > of years. > > Any time you force another dimension into such an existing hierarchy, > things break, and people get annoyed. > > Sure ... the kernel doesn't care ... it can handle whatever hierarchy > you like.
Crazy idea. How about we add support for sym links to the cgroup fs ? It's still much cleaner imo than dealing with complex irq grouping schemes.
In other words with symlinks we could do `-- cpuset |-- A -> X/A |-- B -> X/B |-- C `-- X |-- A `-- B
The software that is used to the flat structure won't know the difference.
Max
| |