[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies
    On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 13:19 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
    > So, I mean, I don't know. What do other people think? Is this a
    > unnecessary worry? Are people generally happy with the way things
    > are? Lennart, Kay, what do you guys think?

    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.

    Yes it will make some people unhappy, but I can live with that since my
    life will be easier.. :-)

    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.

    Having seen what userspace does (libvirt in particular, I've still
    managed to not get infected by the systemd crap) its utterly and
    completely insane. Now I don't think any of my machines actually still
    have libvirt on it, so I don't care if we break that either ;-)

    Another thing I dislike about all the cgroup crap is all the dozens of
    tiny controllers being proposed left right and center. Like WTF isn't
    the hugetlb controller part of memcg? Its all memory, right?

    Now I appreciate all this is new and exciting and Linux does the
    evolutionary development thing so its bound to be a mess sometimes, but

    So +1 on just ripping everything apart and trying again.

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-22 14:33    [W:0.020 / U:4.740 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site