Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754155Ab0HCEiS (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 00:38:18 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:13530 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751453Ab0HCEiQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 00:38:16 -0400 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:x-system-of-record; b=kcwmnK/bgleQXfhQzpATwpUiPfGOspSYFroCS10ffmwnMC3RGu059gnsx4V8rinzU IP3tQtkbG74N/I6umgRtw== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100802085332.23dd22f6@schatten.dmk.lab> References: <20100731175841.GA9367@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100731215214.2543c07e@infradead.org> <20100801054816.GI2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100731230101.7cc1d8c7@infradead.org> <20100801191228.GL2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100801204026.GH31324@thunk.org> <20100802030304.GU2470@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20100801210548.23f77ff6@infradead.org> <20100802074429.73a9dfd9@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100802084003.1c4c2bdb@schatten.dmk.lab> <20100802085332.23dd22f6@schatten.dmk.lab> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 21:38:12 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread From: Paul Menage To: Florian Mickler Cc: david@lang.hm, Arjan van de Ven , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, "Ted Ts'o" , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arve@android.com, mjg59@srcf.ucam.org, pavel@ucw.cz, rjw@sisk.pl, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, swetland@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1104 Lines: 25 On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Florian Mickler wrote: > > Thinking about it.. I don't know much about cgroups, but I think a > process can only be in one cgroup at a time. A thread can only be in one cgroup in each hierarchy at one time. You can mount multiple cgroups hierarchies, with different resource controllers on different hierarchies. > > b) you can't use cgroup for other purposes anymore. I.e. if you want to > have 2 groups that each only have half of the memory available, how > would you then integrate the cgroup-ignore-for-idle-approach with this? You could mount the subsystem that provides the "ignore-for-idle" support on one hierarchy, and partition the trusted/untrusted processes that way, and the memory controller subsystem on a different hierarchy, with whatever split you wanted for memory controls. 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/