From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751691AbaDQO5d (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:57:33 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.216.51]:47594 "EHLO mail-qa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751614AbaDQO50 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:57:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 10:57:23 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Glyn Normington Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] control groups: documentation improvements Message-ID: <20140417145723.GI15326@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20140314140136.GF12613@htj.dyndns.org> <53230C7E.7060607@gopivotal.com> <533C05D8.8020600@gopivotal.com> <533C0DD9.1050809@gopivotal.com> <20140416210025.GE26632@htj.dyndns.org> <534FB0F5.3010904@gopivotal.com> <20140417131615.GH26632@htj.dyndns.org> <534FDB04.6050406@gopivotal.com> <20140417135528.GE15326@htj.dyndns.org> <534FEA74.70300@gopivotal.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <534FEA74.70300@gopivotal.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Glyn. On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:51:32PM +0100, Glyn Normington wrote: > >It's kinda useless to go through all the precise terms to re-define > >hierarchical grouping of tasks, which is both accurate and intuitive > >enough. Adding extra descriptions to clarify ambiguities and just to > >reinforce the concept would be fine but trying to build the concept > >from the ground is silly at best. Starting with something intuitive > >and refining it is a far better approach. > > I'm sorry you feel this way. A couple of us (full disclosure: both > mathematicians) tried hard to get a precise understanding of cgroups > from cgroups.txt, but several terms remained vague until we had done > some experiments and discussed our findings on the mailing list. > > The aim of the patch is to crisp up the definitions of those terms > for other newcomers, so they won't have to go through the same > exercise. Oh, don't get me wrong. The current documentation is neither intuitive or precise. I have hard time understanding what it's saying, so probably even just increasing precision is an improvement. > Interestingly, after we had understood the terms, cgroups.txt seemed > much clearer than it did originally. But that's because we were > tending to read our new-found understanding into the text. Might you > not be doing the same? Sure thing. Please go ahead and improve it. It's not good at all in all fronts. > So, how would you like to proceed? You could reject the patch > outright if you think our experience is unrepresentative. Or, for > the benefit of other newcomers, we are willing to try reworking the > parts you find unreadable if you could kindly pick them out. The > choice is yours. :-) Again, I think it's an improvement but was just hoping you could add a bit more intuitive explanations so that it's more approchable. The two properties aren't mutually exclusive. > Thanks for the clarification. If you agree to proceed, we should be > able to find a simpler way to cover this paragraph. I really don't mind being verbose if it makes things clearer and easier to understand. Thanks! -- tejun