[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies
On 02/22/2012 05:30 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?
Right. But this is easy to solve.
People are usually pointing out that "Hey, but that's not how my
controller works, I need it to be slightly different here and there".
If we agree this is a bad thing - I think it is, we can at least adopt
as a policy not to take any patches that create another hierarchy unless
the need is utterly demonstrated.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-22 14:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean