From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:13:19 +0100 Message-ID: <1330006399.11248.20.camel@twins> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <20120222163858.GB4128@redhat.com> <20120222165714.GC4128@redhat.com> <1329990094.24994.64.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1329990094.24994.64.camel@twins> 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: Vivek Goyal Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Kay Sievers , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Christoph Hellwig , Lennart Poettering , Tejun Heo , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 10:41 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > If your complete control is % based then I would assume its a % of a %. > Simple enough. > > If its bandwidth based then simply don't allow a child to consume more > bandwidth than its parent, also simple. > > If your layman isn't capable of grokking that, he should stay the f*ck > away from it. Fact is, the scheduler does both these things, so there's absolutely no reason for other controllers not to do so too. Its the only sensible thing if you want hierarchy. My utter disregard for cgroups comes from having to actually implement a controller for them, its a frigging nightmare. The systemd retards mandating all this nonsense for booting a machine is completely bonghit inspired and hasn't made me feel any better about it.