On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 02:20:38PM +0200, Jan Safranek wrote: > I know there are use cases where /sysdefault group makes sense, but there > are plenty of there where not - it always depends on controller and use > case. And IMHO there are more use cases where /sysdefault is not needed - at > least I did not need it during my experiments. > > I propose to get rid of this automation and don't create the default group. > Let user decide, if it is created or not. Eventually I might add default > configuration for the controllers, which are not usable without it (if > there are any). >
I am not so sure we don't need this. One of the main subsystems, where it is needed is the CPU controller. If we don't move it into a cgroup not at root level, it gets a lot more cpu bandwidth than a process inside a cgrouo at a lower level. And I am assuming most setups will have the CPU controller mounted by default. thanks, -- regards, Dhaval ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Libcg-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libcg-devel
