Hello, On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:29:42AM +0100, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > There shouldn't be a "freezer" cgroup. The processes are categorized > > according to their logical structure and controllers are applied to > > the hierarchy as necessary. > > But there can well be cgroups for which only freezer is enabled. If > I'm wrong about that, then I am suffering a fundamental misunderstanding. Ah, sure, I was mostly arguing semantics. It's just weird to call it "freezer" cgroup. > > The semantics is that the parent enables distribution of its given > > type of resource by enabling the controller in its subtree_control. > > This scoping isn't necessary for freezer and I'm debating whether to > > enable controllers which don't need granularity control to be enabled > > unconditionally. Right now, I'm leaning against it mostly for > > consistency. > > Yeah, IIUC (i.e. freezer would always be enabled?) that would be > even-more-confusing. Right, freezer is kinda weird tho. Its feature can almost be considered a utility feature of cgroups core rather than a separate controller. That said, it's most likely that it'll remain in its current form although how it blocks tasks should definitely be reimplemented. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
