From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:43:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20120911174319.GO7677@google.com> References: <20120910223125.GC7677@google.com> <20120910223355.GD7677@google.com> <504F30DB.60808@huawei.com> <20120911170837.GM7677@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rHtENphyrRAF23j7V0N1LoZF3peiT7Iy+Tesfnh+QZc=; b=u3JRI5eQO2R0GNF+BGM7X+TPhDtjsF0SZEI6rqc5PKVdVecGEglyygpHZKg9FsyCr6 6utRDae0CTifLumTLSwVYzHcpZ6jyRLlWh8Cyph0uc5htgpcEuLw9EVatMqcGttK8p0w 7cuniY8RvZHn4A6MAsEHdLfXoSwjlRTQSf9Zc+I7uSu6ra2Hws9ccJHamKcC6mnkdkHB W/4kN6fOegTASUWKpsECS1/Fofe48nghkuoxK8CfHVd+udVxdh19q0NyLosYJCG12qld G6VU1ApCmzNVmh267oWIPqrfQzK+xVxbJqGuRsNZQOZRre+l7IAe6oozG84126qBaBOj BAHw== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120911170837.GM7677-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Li Zefan Cc: Neil Horman , "Serge E. Hallyn" , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Michal Hocko , Ingo Molnar , Paul Mackerras , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Johannes Weiner , Thomas Graf , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Paul Turner , Vivek Goyal Hello, On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:08:37AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > So isn't cpuset broken too? child cpuset's cpu mask isn't necessary a subset > > of the parent's if the cpu_exclusive flag is not set. > > Heh, didn't even look at that. Just assumed it was in the same boat > w/ cpu{acct}. Will take a look. Hmm... Looked at it and I don't think hierarchy support is broken w/ or w/o exclusive. Can you please elaborate? Thanks. -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757344Ab2IKRng (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:43:36 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:63341 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755368Ab2IKRnY (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:43:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:43:19 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Li Zefan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , Glauber Costa , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Turner , Johannes Weiner , Thomas Graf , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Vivek Goyal , Paul Mackerras , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Neil Horman , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them Message-ID: <20120911174319.GO7677@google.com> References: <20120910223125.GC7677@google.com> <20120910223355.GD7677@google.com> <504F30DB.60808@huawei.com> <20120911170837.GM7677@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120911170837.GM7677@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:08:37AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > So isn't cpuset broken too? child cpuset's cpu mask isn't necessary a subset > > of the parent's if the cpu_exclusive flag is not set. > > Heh, didn't even look at that. Just assumed it was in the same boat > w/ cpu{acct}. Will take a look. Hmm... Looked at it and I don't think hierarchy support is broken w/ or w/o exclusive. Can you please elaborate? Thanks. -- tejun