lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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    [W:0.023 / U:125.672 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site