Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation/cgroup-v1: fix outdated programming details

[Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

Hello, Matt.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:34:49PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> If a system is already using a cgroups-v2 hierarchy to manage other
> system resources via the standard controllers, I think it would be ideal
> if we could leverage that existing process organization to supply i915
> with desired driver-specific policy and resource assignments.  Since
> cgroup controllers don't seem to support this at the moment, is there an
> alternate mechanism I should be looking at instead?  Or is this a type
> of use case that we may want to evolve cgroups to support in a different
> manner?

cgroup membership of a task and the hierarchical relationships of
cgroups can be determined trivially.  Unless the resource in question
needs to and can strictly follow the resource rules for cgroup
controllers, which can become really involving and invasive, the
better and easier approach is using cgroup membership as an extra
information from the subsystem, which is how the network and bpf
handle cgroup membership too.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun