Hello, Glauber. On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:35:11PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > As long as cpuacct and cpu are separate, I think it makes sense to > > assume that they at least could be at different granularity. > > If they are comounted, and more: forceably comounted, I don't see how to > call them separate. At the very best, they are this way for > compatibility purposes only, to lay a path that would allow us to get > rid of the separation eventually. I think this is where we disagree. I didn't mean that all controllers should be using exactly the same hierarchy when I was talking about unified hierarchy. I do think it's useful and maybe even essential to allow differing levels of granularity. cpu and cpuacct could be a valid example for this. Likely blkcg and memcg too. So, I think it's desirable for all controllers to be able to handle hierarchies the same way and to have the ability to tag something as belonging to certain group in the hierarchy for all controllers but I don't think it's desirable or feasible to require all of them to follow exactly the same grouping at all levels. 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
