CC: Balbir Singh Paul Menage wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> - always display one line for each subsystem; if a subsystem is >>> multiply-bindable then the "hierarchy id" and "num cgroups" columns >>> may be empty or have multiple (comma or slash-separated?) values >>> >> Then "hierarchy id" is no long a single number.. > > Correct. > >>> - for a multiply-bindable subsystem, have a header line to indicate >>> that the subsystem exists, and then a separate line for each bound >>> instance of the subsystem. >>> >> I think it's better to show every subsystems including debug_subsys in >> /proc/cgroups, and show exactly n lines of debug_susys if we have n >> hierarcies with debug_subsys binded, but no header line. > > But that gives a contradiction when n == 0 - we can't show exactly 0 > lines for an unbound multi subsys, and still show every subsystem. > I don't see what's wrong with this behavior: multi subsys sits in rootnode if it's unbound, and is removed from rootnode if it's binded at least in one hierarchy. > Does libcgroup actually parse /proc/cgroup? If not, maybe we should Balbir may answer this. :) > just break the format now and replace it with something more > extensible for future changes. > Even /proc/cgroup is ok, I don't think we can break this based on assumption that on one is making use of /proc/cgroups. :( >> And some cgroup test programs, like controller tests in ltp and some >> test programs that I wrote, but they are ok for this change. > > Right, changes to test programs aren't a compatibility issue. > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers