Re: boot cgroup questions

[Max Krasnyanskiy]

Paul Jackson wrote:
> Max K wrote:
> > btw I still do not see the "incompatibility" argument.
>
> It's similar, perhaps, to what happens when we try to accomodate two
> architectures in one file system, with things like:
> 	/x86_64/bin
> 	/ia64/bin
> replacing the well known /bin.
>
> Things break.  Apps such as the major batch schedulers (PBS and LSF)
> and various other tools and scripts buried here and there have come
> used to developing particular cpuset hierarchies over the last couple
> of years.
>
> Any time you force another dimension into such an existing hierarchy,
> things break, and people get annoyed.
>
> Sure ... the kernel doesn't care ... it can handle whatever hierarchy
> you like.

Crazy idea. How about we add support for sym links to the cgroup fs ?
It's still much cleaner imo than dealing with complex irq grouping schemes.

In other words with symlinks we could do
`-- cpuset
    |-- A -> X/A
    |-- B -> X/B
    |-- C
    `-- X
        |-- A
        `-- B

The software that is used to the flat structure won't know the difference.

Max





--
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/