Hello, On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:46:18PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > So what you're saying is that you don't care that this new thing is > less capable than the old thing, despite it having real impact. Sort of. I'm saying, at least up until now, moving away from orthogonal hierarchy support seems to be the right trade-off. It all depends on how you measure how much things are simplified and how heavy the "real impacts" are. It's not like these things can be determined white and black. Given the current situation, I think it's the right call. > If controller C is enabled at level X but disabled at level X/Y, does > that mean that X/Y uses the limits set in X? How about X/Y/Z? Y and Y/Z wouldn't make any difference. Tasks belonging to them would behave as if they belong to X as far as C is concerened. > So take away some of the flexibility that has minimal impact and > maximum return. Splitting threads across cgroups - we use it, but we > could get off that. Force all-or-nothing joining of an aggregate Please do so. > construct (a container vs N cgroups). > > But perform surgery with a scalpel, not a hatchet. As anything else, it's drawing a line in a continuous spectrum of grey. Right now, given that maintaining multiple orthogonal hierarchies while introducing a proper concept of resource container involves addition of completely new constructs and complexity, I don't think that's a good option. If there are problems which can't be resolved / worked around in a reasonable manner, please bring them up along with their contexts. Let's examine them and see whether there are other ways to accomodate them. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
