Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:37:42 +0400 | From | Glauber Costa <> | Subject | Re: [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.
| |