From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx159.postini.com [74.125.245.159]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCC066B0083 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:21:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([2001:4978:20e::1]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1T9CjD-0006Te-5d for linux-mm@kvack.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:20:59 +0000 Received: from dhcp-089-099-019-018.chello.nl ([89.99.19.18] helo=dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1T9CjC-0000wa-DR for linux-mm@kvack.org; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 10:20:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups. From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: <50471C0C.7050600@parallels.com> References: <1346768300-10282-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120904214602.GA9092@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <5047074D.1030104@parallels.com> <20120905081439.GC3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <50470A87.1040701@parallels.com> <20120905082947.GD3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <50470EBF.9070109@parallels.com> <20120905084740.GE3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <1346835993.2600.9.camel@twins> <20120905091140.GH3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <50471782.6060800@parallels.com> <1346837209.2600.14.camel@twins> <50471C0C.7050600@parallels.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:20:53 +0200 Message-ID: <1346840453.2461.6.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, davej@redhat.com, ben@decadent.org.uk, pjt@google.com, lennart@poettering.net, kay.sievers@vrfy.org On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 13:31 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > You wouldn't have to do more than one hierarchy walks for that. What > Tejun seems to want, is the ability to not have a particular controller > at some point in the tree. But if they exist, they are always together. Right, but the accounting is very much tied to the control structures, I suppose we could change that, but my jet-leg addled brain isn't seeing anything particularly nice atm. But I don't really see the point though, this kind of interface would only ever work for the non-controlling and controlling controller combination (confused yet ;-), and I don't think we have many of those. I would really rather see a simplification of the entire cgroup interface space as opposed to making it more complex. And adding this subtree 'feature' only makes it more complex. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org