Hello, Li. On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:22:26PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > > The following is a "best practices" document on using cgroups. > > > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PaxControlGroups > > > > To me, it seems to demonstrate the rather ugly situation that the > > current cgroup is providing. Everyone should tip-toe around cgroup > > hierarchies and nobody has full knowledge or control over them. > > e.g. base system management (e.g. systemd) can't use freezer or task > > counter as someone else might want to use it for different hierarchy > > layout. > > > > This issue still exists if we allow a single hierarchy only, right? > Different cgroup users/applications have to struggle not to step > on each other's toe. Oh sure, having single hierarchy doesn't solve that problem but makes it clear that there's single representation that kernel understands and deals with. I think the problem now is that kernel tries to multiplex multiple users. Unfortunately, it does that half-way and badly and I think the nature of the problem doesn't really allow proper muxed interface at kernel layer. So, I'm suggesting to let go of the broken pretense and just have a single unified interfce and let userland deal with resource allocation policies. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
