On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 13:12 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:

On 09/05/2012 01:11 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:

quoted

Hello, Peter.

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 11:06:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

*confused* I always thought that was exactly what you meant with unified
hierarchy.

No, I never counted out differing granularity.

Can you elaborate on which interface do you envision to make it work?
They will clearly be mounted in the same hierarchy, or as said
alternatively, comounted.

If you can turn them on/off on a per-subtree basis, which interface
exactly do you propose for that?

I wouldn't, screw that. That would result in the exact same problem
we're trying to fix. I want a single hierarchy walk, that's expensive
enough.

Would a pair of cgroup core files like available_controllers and
current_controllers are a lot of drivers do, suffice?

No.. its not a 'feature' I care to support for 'my' controllers.

I simply don't want to have to do two (or more) hierarchy walks for
accounting on every schedule event, all that pointer chasing is stupidly
expensive.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>