Mike Galbraith, le Thu 18 Nov 2010 16:35:51 -0700, a écrit :
quoted text
> On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 00:12 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Hans-Peter Jansen, le Thu 18 Nov 2010 23:33:46 +0100, a écrit :
> > > As already mentioned countless times (and some of it was even renamed 
> > > for this very fact): the grouping by tty is just a starter. There are 
> > > plenty of other possibilities to group the scheduling. The hard part is 
> > > to find the right grouping concepts, that are making sense in the 
> > > usability department _and_ are easy enough to be picked up from our 
> > > favorite system and desktop environments. That's where the generic 
> > > cgroup concept seems to be lacking ATM..
> > 
> > Actually, cgroups should probably be completely hierarchical: sessions
> > contain process groups, which contain processes, which contain threads.
> > You could also gather sessions with the same uid.
> 
> Hierarchical is ~tempting, but adds overhead for not much gain.

What overhead? The implementation of cgroups is actually already
hierarchical.

Samuel
--
unsubscribe notice
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/