[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies
Hey, Peter.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 02:30:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

I just don't get why it's there. Maybe, there can be some remote use
cases where orthogonal hierarchies can be useful but structuring whole
cgroup around that seems really extreme.

> 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.

The only question is whether we want to allow cgroup hierarchy to be
completely orthogonal from process tree structure, which I don't think
is a good idea. It shouldn't affect trivial use cases. If not
explicitly configured, all tasks would live in a single root cgroup -
much like every process would belong to the same session if nobody
does setsid() since boot (or container).

I don't know how the implementation would turn out and it may as well
stay separate as it is now but I still think the topology should match



 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-22 19:03    [W:0.250 / U:1.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site