Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread

[Paul Menage]

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
--
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/