Hello, Glauber. On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:03:25PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > The goal here is to have distributions to do it, because they tend to > have a well defined lifecycle management, much more than upstream. Whoever > sets this option, can coordinate with upstream. Distros can just co-mount them during boot. What's the point of the config options? > > Also, I really don't see much point in enforcing this almost arbitrary > > grouping of controllers. It doesn't simplify anything and using > > cpuacct in more granular way than cpu actually is one of the better > > justified use of multiple hierarchies. Also, what about memcg and > > blkcg? Do they *really* coincide? Note that both blkcg and memcg > > involve non-trivial overhead and blkcg is essentially broken > > hierarchy-wise. > > Where did I mention memcg or blkcg in this patch ? Differing hierarchies in memcg and blkcg currently is the most prominent case where the intersection in writeback is problematic and your proposed solution doesn't help one way or the other. What's the point? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>