Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups.

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 13:31 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> 
> You wouldn't have to do more than one hierarchy walks for that. What
> Tejun seems to want, is the ability to not have a particular controller
> at some point in the tree. But if they exist, they are always together. 

Right, but the accounting is very much tied to the control structures, I
suppose we could change that, but my jet-leg addled brain isn't seeing
anything particularly nice atm.

But I don't really see the point though, this kind of interface would
only ever work for the non-controlling and controlling controller
combination (confused yet ;-), and I don't think we have many of those.

I would really rather see a simplification of the entire cgroup
interface space as opposed to making it more complex. And adding this
subtree 'feature' only makes it more complex.

--
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/