[Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH] NOOP cgroup subsystem
Matt Helsley
matthltc at us.ibm.com
Tue Jan 20 18:36:50 PST 2009
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 12:07 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:52:36 -0800
> Paul Menage <menage at google.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Would it make sense to allow a class of subsystem that explicitly has
> > no state (or at least, has no state that has a global meaning on the
> > machine), so that it can be multiply-mounted?
> >
> multilply-mounted means its own hierachy can be created per mount point ?
I suspect that's what Paul meant -- multiple, distinct instances of the
subsystem could be mounted.
> If so, signal subsystem can be used instead of noop.
Agreed.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list