From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 5/5] cgroup: Assign subsystem IDs during compile time Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:25:19 +0800 Message-ID: <502DF1DF.8040109@huawei.com> References: <1345126336-20755-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <1345126336-20755-6-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <20120816232010.GJ24861@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120816232010.GJ24861-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Tejun Heo Cc: Daniel Wagner , netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Daniel Wagner , "David S. Miller" , Andrew Morton , Eric Dumazet , Gao feng , Glauber Costa , Jamal Hadi Salim , John Fastabend , Kamezawa Hiroyuki , Neil Horman On 2012/8/17 7:20, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: >> From: Daniel Wagner >> >> We are able to safe some space when we assign the subsystem >> IDs at compile time. Instead of allocating per cgroup >> cgroup->subsys[CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT] where CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT is >> always 64, we allocate 12 + 1 at max (at this point there are 12 >> subsystem). > > So, IIUC, this is effectively removing the capability to implement > modularized controller which isn't known at kernel compile time. Am I > right? > I think so. > I don't think that's a bad idea but if we're doing that, can't we make > things even simpler? Do we need to distinguish in-kernel and module > at all? > > Li, what do you think about this? > I'm definitely all for simplicity, but I'm not sure if we can do better in simplifying the code for modularized cgroup subsystem. (I guess you didn't mean to remove this feature?) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 5/5] cgroup: Assign subsystem IDs during compile time Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:25:19 +0800 Message-ID: <502DF1DF.8040109@huawei.com> References: <1345126336-20755-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <1345126336-20755-6-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <20120816232010.GJ24861@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Wagner , , , Daniel Wagner , "David S. Miller" , Andrew Morton , Eric Dumazet , Gao feng , Glauber Costa , Jamal Hadi Salim , John Fastabend , Kamezawa Hiroyuki , Neil Horman To: Tejun Heo Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120816232010.GJ24861-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 2012/8/17 7:20, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: >> From: Daniel Wagner >> >> We are able to safe some space when we assign the subsystem >> IDs at compile time. Instead of allocating per cgroup >> cgroup->subsys[CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT] where CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT is >> always 64, we allocate 12 + 1 at max (at this point there are 12 >> subsystem). > > So, IIUC, this is effectively removing the capability to implement > modularized controller which isn't known at kernel compile time. Am I > right? > I think so. > I don't think that's a bad idea but if we're doing that, can't we make > things even simpler? Do we need to distinguish in-kernel and module > at all? > > Li, what do you think about this? > I'm definitely all for simplicity, but I'm not sure if we can do better in simplifying the code for modularized cgroup subsystem. (I guess you didn't mean to remove this feature?)