On Wed 26-09-12 16:33:34, Tejun Heo wrote: [...] > > > So, this seems properly crazy to me at the similar level of > > > use_hierarchy fiasco. I'm gonna NACK on this. > > > > As I said: all use cases I particularly care about are covered by a > > global switch. > > > > I am laying down my views because I really believe they make more sense. > > But at some point, of course, I'll shut up if I believe I am a lone voice. > > > > I believe it should still be good to hear from mhocko and kame, but from > > your point of view, would all the rest, plus the introduction of a > > global switch make it acceptable to you? > > The only thing I'm whining about is per-node switch + silently > ignoring past accounting, so if those two are solved, I think I'm > pretty happy with the rest. I think that per-group "switch" is not nice as well but if we make it hierarchy specific (which I am proposing for quite some time) and do not let enable accounting for a group with tasks then we get both flexibility and reasonable semantic. A global switch sounds too coars to me and it really not necessary. Would this work with you? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- 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
