On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. You mean just for the purposes of /proc/cgroup, or in reality? Singleton (traditional) subsystems generally have some meaning outside of the cgroups framework, e.g. the "cpu" subsystem corresponds to CFS scheduler nodes for tasks; "cpuset" corresponds to the permitted cpus/mems for a task. For every task there's a single unique state object for each singleton subsystem. But multi-bindable subsystems don't really have any meaning outside the cgroup framework, since there's no unique mapping from a task to its subsystem state. So instantiating a root cgroup object for that subsystem in the unbound hierarchy is a bit pointless - it can't really do anything. So it wouldn't really make sense to keep one instance of a multi-bindable subsystem attached to rootnote until the first bind for that subsystem, and then create fresh ones on the fly later if the subsystem is bound to more hierarchies. In particular, which one would you return to the rootnode later? But I guess we could just pretend in /proc/cgroup, and add a new column such as "multi-bindable". Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
