Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759357Ab0KPXkH (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:40:07 -0500 Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:41609 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756492Ab0KPXkF (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:40:05 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:39:34 -0500 From: "Ted Ts'o" To: Lennart Poettering Cc: Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Dhaval Giani , Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , Vivek Goyal , Oleg Nesterov , Markus Trippelsdorf , Mathieu Desnoyers , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups Message-ID: <20101116233934.GC1568@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ted Ts'o , Lennart Poettering , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Dhaval Giani , Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , Vivek Goyal , Oleg Nesterov , Markus Trippelsdorf , Mathieu Desnoyers , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Balbir Singh References: <1289916683.2109.625.camel@laptop> <20101116170312.GA19327@tango.0pointer.de> <20101116181603.GC19327@tango.0pointer.de> <20101116202839.GC27235@tango.0pointer.de> <20101116205243.64e4a67a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20101116211909.GB16589@tango.0pointer.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101116211909.GB16589@tango.0pointer.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1509 Lines: 32 On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:19:09PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Well, my plan was actually to by default put everything into its own > group, and then let users opt-out of that for specific processes, if the > want to. How many users are likely to do this, though? I think you really want to make this be something which the application can specify by default that they should start in their own cgroup. One idea might be to it to the applications menu entry: http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ ... so there would be a new key value pair, "start_in_cgroup", that would allow the user to start an application in their own cgroup. It would be up to the desktop launcher to honor that if it was present. One nice thing about having the desktop launch each application in its own cgroup is that it becomes easier for an desktop task manager to have a UI listing that lists things in a format which will be somewhat easier to understand than process listing. The cgroup would be a useful way to organize what is going on for each launched application, and it would allow people to see how much memory some application like evolution really requires. (On the other hand, maybe they would be happier not knowing. :-) - Ted -- 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/