From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:45:41 -0700 Message-ID: <20130627184541.GA6400@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20130422214159.GG12543@htj.dyndns.org> <20130625000118.GT1918@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130626212047.GB4536@htj.dyndns.org> <1372311907.5871.78.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20130627132206.GE4003@sergelap> <20130627174850.GC5599@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130627181457.GB26334@sergelap> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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=X17l6UJwBBzAcoRRhcHoiq/p77qKiBIiiq5VwshWo1M=; b=yNbUfQoAAT3JMWBz1OKnwXqwvmpUnFYTXGBt4xmIHxyvn1vm5JPuuj4AnCIyZEbyJ9 un1Kit85wQqbU4CfZpx7IwxN3cw2XJL7rTKgB7+fnFhCu+ZkAO/8ZLSXBGriw9mDroNh iUfUKusu9/bUCdeuVQjs1f6q5rajcUVy3rtYChM81tQwcvIZhp6WedMUNFYV1sxP1vhM emSHaQyQ4LM4g5izRvG19xICaXURacx2WsWgXODv8XBvatqZzrCSVsl0c3LU0mapUCtN DSP9ayZhQHFulXJNrC3d6HVTAWwUNtITm/jiMQXJZxtZ5BnZ9OUPYw7mNqDcPmBvjjvd vX1w== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130627181457.GB26334@sergelap> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Serge Hallyn Cc: Tim Hockin , Mike Galbraith , Containers , Kay Sievers , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , lpoetter , jpoimboe , Cgroups , "dhaval.giani" , workman-devel Hello, Serge. On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:14:57PM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote: > I should find a good, up-to-date summary of the current behaviors of > each controller so I can talk more intelligently about it. (I'll > start by looking at the kernel Documentation/cgroups, but don't > feel too confident that they'll be uptodate :) Heh, it's hopelessly outdated. Sorry about that. I'll get around to updating it eventually. Right now everything is in flux. > Right, I'm not attached to my toy implementation at all - except for > the ability, in some fashion, to have nested agents which don't have > cgroupfs access but talk to another agent to get the job done. I think it probably would be better to allow organization and RO access to knobs and stat files inside containers, for lower overhead, if nothing else, and have comm channel for operations which need supervision at a wider level. Thanks. -- tejun