From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 5/5] cgroup: Assign subsystem IDs during compile time Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:25:19 +0800 Message-ID: <502DF1DF.8040109@huawei.com> References: <1345126336-20755-1-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <1345126336-20755-6-git-send-email-wagi@monom.org> <20120816232010.GJ24861@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Wagner , , , Daniel Wagner , "David S. Miller" , Andrew Morton , Eric Dumazet , Gao feng , Glauber Costa , Jamal Hadi Salim , John Fastabend , Kamezawa Hiroyuki , Neil Horman To: Tejun Heo Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120816232010.GJ24861-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 2012/8/17 7:20, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote: >> From: Daniel Wagner >> >> We are able to safe some space when we assign the subsystem >> IDs at compile time. Instead of allocating per cgroup >> cgroup->subsys[CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT] where CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT is >> always 64, we allocate 12 + 1 at max (at this point there are 12 >> subsystem). > > So, IIUC, this is effectively removing the capability to implement > modularized controller which isn't known at kernel compile time. Am I > right? > I think so. > I don't think that's a bad idea but if we're doing that, can't we make > things even simpler? Do we need to distinguish in-kernel and module > at all? > > Li, what do you think about this? > I'm definitely all for simplicity, but I'm not sure if we can do better in simplifying the code for modularized cgroup subsystem. (I guess you didn't mean to remove this feature?)