On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 10:57:33AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > >>> There may be other ways to cobble this sort of safety together, but > >>> they are less appealing for various reasons. cgroups are how we > >>> control groups of related pids. > >>> > >>> I'd really love to be able to use this. > >> > >> Has it been confirmed that this implementation actually solves the > >> problem? ie: tested a bit? > >> > >> btw, Frederic told me that this version of the patchset had some > >> serious problem so it's on hold pending an upgrade, regardless of other > >> matters. > > > > Yep. The particular issue is https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/13/532 > > > > Li Zefan proposed a fix (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/17/26) which I'm > > currently reworking. > > > > We really need to coordinate cgroup patches. I mean, the patchset+fix conflict > with Tejun's work, and the conflict is not trivial. Either Tejun targets for -mm, or I try to get my patches into the pm tree where Tejun's patches are aimed. I just would like to keep Andrew in the process of my patches somehow. Also it might be time for you and/or Paul Menage to run a cgroup git tree, what do you think :) _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
