Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757045AbZAIG1D (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:27:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753359AbZAIG0w (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:26:52 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:7998 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752244AbZAIG0v (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:26:51 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: x-gmailtapped-by:x-gmailtapped; b=Ae18FrpBIMPbQlglE40etDeBVH8uLC7+CfvOUSWRaqczle7XANQDp1ZBy6EAvIORC zP2MvOpnttKeDuuMzyIsw== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090109143226.b79d21b4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20090109143226.b79d21b4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:26:46 -0800 Message-ID: <6599ad830901082226h6d47053cp801dafb67b6e2bc9@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem From: Paul Menage To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "lizf@cn.fujitsu.com" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-GMailtapped-By: 172.28.16.144 X-GMailtapped: menage Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1215 Lines: 25 On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:32 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > Motivation: Simply classify Applications by cgroup > When using cgroup for classifying applications, some kind of "control" or > "account" subsys must be used. For flexible use of cgroup's nature of > classifying applications, NOOP is useful. It can be used regardless of > resource accounting unit or name spaces or some controls. > IOW, NOOP cgroup allows users to tie PIDs with some nickname. I agree that the idea is useful. But to me it seems to a bit artificial that you still have to mount some kind of subsystem purely to get the grouping, and that you can only have one such grouping. I think I'd prefer the ability to mount a cgroups hierarchy without *any* subsystems (maybe with "-o none"?) which would give you a similar effect, but without you needing to know about a special no-op subsystem, and would allow you to have multiple "no-op" groupings. Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/