[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [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



     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-22 19:03    [W:0.019 / U:3.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site