On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 15:32 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:26:46 -0800 > Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:32 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Motivation: Simply classify Applications by cgroup > > > When using cgroup for classifying applications, some kind of "control" or > > > "account" subsys must be used. For flexible use of cgroup's nature of > > > classifying applications, NOOP is useful. It can be used regardless of > > > resource accounting unit or name spaces or some controls. > > > IOW, NOOP cgroup allows users to tie PIDs with some nickname. > > > > I agree that the idea is useful. But to me it seems to a bit > > artificial that you still have to mount some kind of subsystem purely > > to get the grouping, and that you can only have one such grouping. > > > > I think I'd prefer the ability to mount a cgroups hierarchy without > > *any* subsystems (maybe with "-o none"?) which would give you a > > similar effect, but without you needing to know about a special no-op > > subsystem, and would allow you to have multiple "no-op" groupings. > > > > Oh, it seems better idea. Then, we need no configs and no additional subsys. > Thank you for a hint. I'll check how I can do it. > > Thanks, > -Kame My feeling is this should be a signal subsystem rather than a NOOP subsystem. Then, if users want the grouping for something besides signaling, it doesn't matter if they don't issue any signals via the signal.send file. Also, I think Paul's suggestion would be just as useful for a signal subsystem. What do you think? Cheers, -Matt Helsley PS: Adding containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to Cc. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
