Re: [PATCH v4] sched: automated per session task groups

Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-01T11:33:33Z

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 06:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> IMHO, cgroups should have been 'nice' from the start, but the folks who
> wrote it did what they thought best. I like nice a lot better than
> shares, so I used nice.

Agreed, but by the time I realized that the shares thing was already in
the wild. I did (probably still do) have a patch that adds a nice file
to the cgroup file.

Anyway, I think the whole proc/nice interface for autogroups is already
a tad too far. If people want control they can use cgroups, but I really
don't care enough to argue much about it.