From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups. Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:20:53 +0200 Message-ID: <1346840453.2461.6.camel@laptop> References: <1346768300-10282-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120904214602.GA9092@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <5047074D.1030104@parallels.com> <20120905081439.GC3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <50470A87.1040701@parallels.com> <20120905082947.GD3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <50470EBF.9070109@parallels.com> <20120905084740.GE3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <1346835993.2600.9.camel@twins> <20120905091140.GH3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <50471782.6060800@parallels.com> <1346837209.2600.14.camel@twins> <50471C0C.7050600@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50471C0C.7050600-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Glauber Costa Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, davej-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, ben-/+tVBieCtBitmTQ+vhA3Yw@public.gmane.org, pjt-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, lennart-mdGvqq1h2p+GdvJs77BJ7Q@public.gmane.org, kay.sievers-tD+1rO4QERM@public.gmane.org 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.