[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-13 01:59    [W:0.089 / U:10.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site