On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 12:39 +0800, Zefan Li wrote: > >> We are moving toward unified hierarchy where all the cgroup controllers > >> are bound together, so it would make cgroups easier to use if we have less > >> restrictions on attaching tasks between cgroups. > > > > Forcing group scheduling overhead on users if they want cpuset or memory > > cgroup functionality would be far from wonderful. Am I interpreting the > > implications of this unification/binding properly? > > > > (I hope not, surely the plan is not to utterly _destroy_ cgroup utility) > > > > Some degree of flexibility is provided so that you may disable some controllers > in a subtree. For example: > > root ---> child1 > (cpuset,memory,cpu) (cpuset,memory) > \ > \-> child2 > (cpu) Whew, that's a relief. Thanks. -Mike -- 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
