On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 08:10:49AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > Hi, > As we were implementing multiple-hierarchy support for CPU > controller, we hit some oddities in its implementation, partly related > to current cgroups implementation. Peter and I have been debating on the > exact solution and I thought of bringing that discussion to lkml. > > Consider the cgroup filesystem structure for managing cpu resource. > > # mount -t cgroup -ocpu,cpuacct none /cgroup > # mkdir /cgroup/A > # mkdir /cgroup/B > # mkdir /cgroup/A/a1 > > will result in: > > /cgroup > |------<tasks> > |------<cpuacct.usage> > |------<cpu.shares> > | > |----[A] > | |----<tasks> > | |----<cpuacct.usage> > | |----<cpu.shares> > | | > | |---[a1] > | |----<tasks> > | |----<cpuacct.usage> > | |----<cpu.shares> > | | > | > |----[B] > | |----<tasks> > | |----<cpuacct.usage> > | |----<cpu.shares> > | > > > Here are some questions that arise in this picture: > > 1. What is the relationship of the task-group in A/tasks with the > task-group in A/a1/tasks? In otherwords do they form siblings > of the same parent A? >
Vatsa, I don't know much about cgroups but got a query. How do we handle this if we just go one level up? How do we define relationship between /cgroup/tasks and /cgroup/A/tasks, or /cgroup/tasks and /cgroup/B/tasks? To me lower levels should be handeled in the same way. Thanks Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
