Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 18:25 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 10:10 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Implementing hierarchy is a pain and is expensive at run time. 
> 
> Yeah, suck it up :-)
> 
> I would really rather we mandate one implementation standard for
> controllers for the sake of consistency and uniformity. A direct result
> of doing away with the multiple hierarchy crap is that all controllers
> are co-mounted. Allowing differences like this just doesn't make any
> sense.
> 
> So either we drop full hierarchy support from all controllers or we
> deprecate and remove all non-hierarchical controllers.
> 
> I'm fine with either, but I'm not fine with with the half-arsed
> solutions proposed here.

Note that before this whole discussion I was under the impressions it
was mandated for a controller to be fully hierarchical. I'm very much
surprised people were allowed to merge incomplete controllers like that.


--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux