Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

[Florian Mickler]

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 21:41:17 -0700
Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:06 AM,  <david@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > yes, it could mean a doubleing in the number of cgroups that you need on a
> > system. and if there are other features like this you can end up in a
> > geometric explosion in the number of cgroups.
> 
> No, it would be additive - you can mount different subsystems on
> separate hierarchies. So if you had X divisions for memory, Y
> divisions for CPU and Z divisions for suspend-blocking (where Z=2,
> probably?) you could mount three separate hierarchies and have X+Y+Z
> complexity, not X*Y*Z.
> 
> (Not that I have a strong opinion on whether cgroups is an appropriate
> mechanism for solving this problem - just that the problem you forsee
> shouldn't occur in practice).
> 
> Paul

Ah yes, mea culpa. I've got this wrong.

Cheers,
Flo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/