From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932079Ab0KSTyP (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:54:15 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:40333 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756494Ab0KSTyO (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:54:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87mxp53z72.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20101119.082944.226775934.davem@davemloft.net> <20101119163430.GA12353@tango.0pointer.de> <20101119.084302.71115175.davem@davemloft.net> <87mxp53z72.fsf@gmail.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 11:48:04 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups To: Ben Gamari Cc: David Miller , mzxreary@0pointer.de, tytso@mit.edu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, debiandev@gmail.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, dhaval.giani@gmail.com, efault@gmx.de, vgoyal@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, markus@trippelsdorf.de, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Ben Gamari wrote: > > On that note, is there a good reason why the notify_on_release interface > works the way it does? Wouldn't it be simpler if the cgroup simply > provided a file on which a process (e.g. systemd) could block? Actually, the sane interface would likely just be to have a "drop on release" interface. Maybe some people really want to be _notified_. But my guess would that that just dropping the cgroup when it becomes empty would be at least a reasonable subset of users. Who uses that thing now? The desktop launcher/systemd approach definitely doesn't seem want the overhead of being notified and having to remove it manually. Does anybody else really want it? But that's really an independent question from all the other things. But with new cgroup users, it's very possible that it turns out that some of the original interfaces are just inconvenient and silly. Linus