On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 13:12 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 09/05/2012 01:11 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, Peter. > > > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:06:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> *confused* I always thought that was exactly what you meant with unified > >> hierarchy. > > > > No, I never counted out differing granularity. > > > > Can you elaborate on which interface do you envision to make it work? > They will clearly be mounted in the same hierarchy, or as said > alternatively, comounted. > > If you can turn them on/off on a per-subtree basis, which interface > exactly do you propose for that? I wouldn't, screw that. That would result in the exact same problem we're trying to fix. I want a single hierarchy walk, that's expensive enough. > Would a pair of cgroup core files like available_controllers and > current_controllers are a lot of drivers do, suffice? No.. its not a 'feature' I care to support for 'my' controllers. I simply don't want to have to do two (or more) hierarchy walks for accounting on every schedule event, all that pointer chasing is stupidly expensive. -- 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
