Re: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts

[Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn-GeWIH/nMZzLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

Quoting Tejun Heo (tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org):
> 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 Heh, it's hopelessly outdated.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

What do you mean by "organization"?  Creating cgroups and moving tasks
between them, without setting other cgroup values?

> 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