On 09/05/2012 12:47 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. > By "different levels of granularity" do you mean having just a subset of them turned on at a particular place? If yes, having them guaranteed to be comounted is still perceived by me as a good first step. A natural following would be to turn them on/off on a per-group basis. -- 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
