On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 13:31 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > You wouldn't have to do more than one hierarchy walks for that. What > Tejun seems to want, is the ability to not have a particular controller > at some point in the tree. But if they exist, they are always together. Right, but the accounting is very much tied to the control structures, I suppose we could change that, but my jet-leg addled brain isn't seeing anything particularly nice atm. But I don't really see the point though, this kind of interface would only ever work for the non-controlling and controlling controller combination (confused yet ;-), and I don't think we have many of those. I would really rather see a simplification of the entire cgroup interface space as opposed to making it more complex. And adding this subtree 'feature' only makes it more complex. -- 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
