Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754643Ab2BVSBU (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:01:20 -0500 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:64932 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751966Ab2BVSBQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:01:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:01:12 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Li Zefan , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Kay Sievers , Lennart Poettering , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Message-ID: <20120222180112.GB32694@google.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <1329917459.24994.14.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1329917459.24994.14.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1368 Lines: 34 Hey, Peter. On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 02:30:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > FWIW I'm all for ripping the orthogonal hierarchy crap out, I hate it > just about as much as you do judging from your write-up. I just don't get why it's there. Maybe, there can be some remote use cases where orthogonal hierarchies can be useful but structuring whole cgroup around that seems really extreme. > I'm not sure on your process hierarchy pie though, I rather like being > able to assign tasks to cgroups of my making without having to mirror > that in the process hierarchy. The only question is whether we want to allow cgroup hierarchy to be completely orthogonal from process tree structure, which I don't think is a good idea. It shouldn't affect trivial use cases. If not explicitly configured, all tasks would live in a single root cgroup - much like every process would belong to the same session if nobody does setsid() since boot (or container). I don't know how the implementation would turn out and it may as well stay separate as it is now but I still think the topology should match pstree. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/