IOW a /proc namespace coupled to cgroup scope would do what you want.
Now my head hurts..
Mine too. The idea is good, but too broad. Boils down to: How do you
couple them? And none of the methods I thought about seemed to make any
sense.
If we really want to have the values in /proc being opted-in, I think
Kamezawa's idea of a mount option is the winner so far.
> diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h
> index 1b7f9d5..f0bc2e9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
> @@ -158,6 +158,7 @@ enum {
> * Clone cgroup values when creating a new child cgroup
> */
> CGRP_CLONE_CHILDREN,
> + CGRP_PROC_OVERLAY,
> };
I'm not cgroup expert, but I doubt it is mount option. I suspect it's
cgroup option. That's said, if we have following two directories,
/cgroup-for-virtualization
/cgroup-for-resource-management
are both directory affected the overlay flag? I don't think it is not
optimal. Why? we must care some system software (e.g. kvm, systemd) are
using cgroup internally and we expected this trend will grow more.
So, I doubt namespace issue can be solved by such tiny patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
