From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:22:26 +0800 Message-ID: <4F45F742.1060605@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120221211938.GE12236-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: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Kay Sievers , Lennart Poettering , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org > The following is a "best practices" document on using cgroups. > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PaxControlGroups > > To me, it seems to demonstrate the rather ugly situation that the > current cgroup is providing. Everyone should tip-toe around cgroup > hierarchies and nobody has full knowledge or control over them. > e.g. base system management (e.g. systemd) can't use freezer or task > counter as someone else might want to use it for different hierarchy > layout. > This issue still exists if we allow a single hierarchy only, right? Different cgroup users/applications have to struggle not to step on each other's toe.