Hello,

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:29:42AM +0100, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:

quoted

There shouldn't be a "freezer" cgroup.  The processes are categorized
according to their logical structure and controllers are applied to
the hierarchy as necessary.

But there can well be cgroups for which only freezer is enabled.  If
I'm wrong about that, then I am suffering a fundamental misunderstanding.

Ah, sure, I was mostly arguing semantics.  It's just weird to call it
"freezer" cgroup.

quoted

The semantics is that the parent enables distribution of its given
type of resource by enabling the controller in its subtree_control.
This scoping isn't necessary for freezer and I'm debating whether to
enable controllers which don't need granularity control to be enabled
unconditionally.  Right now, I'm leaning against it mostly for
consistency.

Yeah, IIUC (i.e. freezer would always be enabled?) that would be
even-more-confusing.

Right, freezer is kinda weird tho.  Its feature can almost be
considered a utility feature of cgroups core rather than a separate
controller.  That said, it's most likely that it'll remain in its
current form although how it blocks tasks should definitely be
reimplemented.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun