On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 12:39 +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
> >> We are moving toward unified hierarchy where all the cgroup controllers
> >> are bound together, so it would make cgroups easier to use if we have less
> >> restrictions on attaching tasks between cgroups.
> >
> > Forcing group scheduling overhead on users if they want cpuset or memory
> > cgroup functionality would be far from wonderful. Am I interpreting the
> > implications of this unification/binding properly?
> >
> > (I hope not, surely the plan is not to utterly _destroy_ cgroup utility)
> >
>
> Some degree of flexibility is provided so that you may disable some
> controllers
> in a subtree. For example:
>
> root ---> child1
> (cpuset,memory,cpu) (cpuset,memory)
> \
> \-> child2
> (cpu)
Whew, that's a relief. Thanks.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
