Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:48:29 +0100 | From | Glauber Costa <> | Subject | Re: How to draw values for /proc/stat |
| |
On 12/11/2011 08:11 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > >>>> IOW a /proc namespace coupled to cgroup scope would do what you want. >>>> Now my head hurts.. >>> >>> Mine too. The idea is good, but too broad. Boils down to: How do you >>> couple them? And none of the methods I thought about seemed to make any >>> sense. >>> >>> If we really want to have the values in /proc being opted-in, I think >>> Kamezawa's idea of a mount option is the winner so far. > > > diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h > > index 1b7f9d5..f0bc2e9 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h > > +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h > > @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ enum { > > * Clone cgroup values when creating a new child cgroup > > */ > > CGRP_CLONE_CHILDREN, > > + CGRP_PROC_OVERLAY, > > }; > > I'm not cgroup expert, but I doubt it is mount option. I suspect it's > cgroup option. That's said, if we have following two directories,
Actually, the way I proposed, you have both ways. The mount option is more a default value for convenience, that is effective until you change a file. That's the same way as clone_children already do, and I believe it to be a sane thing.
> /cgroup-for-virtualization > /cgroup-for-resource-management > > are both directory affected the overlay flag?
It depends. The flag is per-cgroup, therefore per-directory. So even if you set the mount option, you can override it in an individual cgroup.
> I don't think it is not > optimal. Why? we must care some system software (e.g. kvm, systemd) are > using cgroup internally and we expected this trend will grow more.
As I said before, each directory has its own files, so in a standard system, we would be more than happy to set it to 1 in the cgroups corresponding to our containers, and leave the rest of the world alone.
> So, I doubt namespace issue can be solved by such tiny patch. > I don't fully get what you mean here
| |