From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: containers and cgroups mini-summit @ Linux Plumbers Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:15:28 -0700 Message-ID: <20120726181528.GA25660@google.com> References: <4FFDF321.4030103@openvz.org> <500FD022.6000608@parallels.com> <877gtr6uo5.fsf@xmission.com> <50110AE6.2080701@parallels.com> <50110D53.2090407@parallels.com> <874nou6bx1.fsf@xmission.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=+MUZBgv+VdjBozbZscVh02UGb4UU8KsLgWfn+rzE2Ww=; b=G5ZZAfwNpMmcGCdVR5ZXpdm2Ued/7FuPAbiOkRLvfrQPvBbl0ULYljNzkDA2E98NO5 P81j8sIDNDOpNkUgmYI9NJwJPo2j+olgr34p85eReVMTT+i8hOZsX0pRAPVb86MkpTUl HTaN38YB/wnPt7nv59CjoKKmiaEtHNisVpTsMmvgOS7rCR0KAdT3Zu9ZL3exDKqTPtla bsX9LvQONm611p5M30AJXjzWS0I71JyxBMVEpw/0Ld6+C3f5nXAhKgdPAFq+Mz90jBsH SoNTkgsrx+o9666aqKFeFPADnsM0nbE/BsOe8FZmWkOl1QxpLagGubnK7ct564cvBvKR f1Sg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874nou6bx1.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Glauber Costa , Frederic Weisbecker , Balbir Singh , Pavel Emelyanov , Suleiman-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Daniel Lezcano , Tim Hockin , Greg Thelen , Paul Turner , devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Serge Hallyn , Souhlal , Dave Kleikamp , Dhaval Giani , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Maxim-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Johannes Weiner , Rohit Seth , Patlasov Hello, Eric. On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 03:42:50AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > - Create a new mount namespace. > - Create fresh mounts of all of the control groups like I would do at > boot, with no consideration to any other control group state. > - Start forking processes. > > The expected semantics would be something like chroot for control > groups, where all of the control groups that are created by fresh mounts > are relative to whatever state the process of being in a control group > that the process that mounted them was in. No, any attempt to build namespace support into cgroup core code will be nacked with strong prejudice. I still think it was a mistake to add that to sysfs. Thankfully, procfs is going the FUSE way and I hope in time we could convert sysfs to a similar mechanism and deprecate the in-kernel support. So, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. :P -- tejun