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: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:18:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20120913171832.GY7677@google.com> References: <20120910223125.GC7677@google.com> <20120910223355.GD7677@google.com> <20120911100433.GC8058@dhcp22.suse.cz> <5050568B.9090601@parallels.com> <20120912154907.GW21579@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20120912171120.GP7677@google.com> <20120913121438.GC8055@dhcp22.suse.cz> 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=W0Uj6tGIQAa4oAYSJ7ntqlgY866cFhV+U9COaJb1plU=; b=eY+9yPvBTWSwDlbD5gjOZkNXK3c3/YEqla55GjqUtVcC5SYBzgREA76FcD1WIeZ7x/ 6Bg4RneshstmSeIh7XpY3J8zaif+dIn6NyqnoLnS7WevnWDCK5XfG1Gf7sccTNYtOwSu 0qEJhiC88D76tKkA/c49kti5pOk+1OB501MI1AYGRsv3VZM0Dlji15oMMInIWFw8kWJ+ VY4c7SKtj3a+QHvdBPivtIzyLoWxHZvLYBigx9zNaAP9M/TnCDyVQLpHHKz/bI+BJwKt EHt7uHQcW3AO5ka+Kl9QEKh8fF2FImwO2rJJ+9E/vrcfJHEiUAYN0K6alRWc+IFOTH6T Q5gg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120913121438.GC8055-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@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: Michal Hocko Cc: Neil Horman , "Serge E. Hallyn" , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Paul Mackerras , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Johannes Weiner , Thomas Graf , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Paul Turner , Ingo Molnar , Vivek Goyal Hello, Michal. On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 02:14:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > I would like to see use_hierarchy go away. The only concern I have is > to warn only if somebody is doing something wrong (aka flat > hierarchies). Or better put it this way. Do not warn in cases which do > not change if use_hierarchy is gone or default changes to 1. > An example: > root (use_hierarchy=0) > | \ > | A (use_hierarchy=0) > | > B (use_hierarachy=1) > |\ > C D > > is a perfectly sane configuration and I do not see any reason to fill > logs with some scary warnings when A is created. There will be no > semantical change in this setup When use_hierchy is gone. > > So the only thing I am proposing here is to warn only if something > should be fixed in the configuration in order to be prepared for fully > hierarchical (and that is a second level of children from root with > use_hierachy==0). > > Does it make more sense now? Ah, okay, so what you're saying is that we shouldn't warn if 0 .use_hierarchys don't make any behavior difference from when they're all 1, right? If so, I have no objection. Will incorporate your updated version. 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 S1758688Ab2IMRSk (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:18:40 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:56126 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758650Ab2IMRSh (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:18:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:18:32 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Michal Hocko Cc: Glauber Costa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Li Zefan , 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: <20120913171832.GY7677@google.com> References: <20120910223125.GC7677@google.com> <20120910223355.GD7677@google.com> <20120911100433.GC8058@dhcp22.suse.cz> <5050568B.9090601@parallels.com> <20120912154907.GW21579@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20120912171120.GP7677@google.com> <20120913121438.GC8055@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120913121438.GC8055@dhcp22.suse.cz> 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, Michal. On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 02:14:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > I would like to see use_hierarchy go away. The only concern I have is > to warn only if somebody is doing something wrong (aka flat > hierarchies). Or better put it this way. Do not warn in cases which do > not change if use_hierarchy is gone or default changes to 1. > An example: > root (use_hierarchy=0) > | \ > | A (use_hierarchy=0) > | > B (use_hierarachy=1) > |\ > C D > > is a perfectly sane configuration and I do not see any reason to fill > logs with some scary warnings when A is created. There will be no > semantical change in this setup When use_hierchy is gone. > > So the only thing I am proposing here is to warn only if something > should be fixed in the configuration in order to be prepared for fully > hierarchical (and that is a second level of children from root with > use_hierachy==0). > > Does it make more sense now? Ah, okay, so what you're saying is that we shouldn't warn if 0 .use_hierarchys don't make any behavior difference from when they're all 1, right? If so, I have no objection. Will incorporate your updated version. Thanks. -- tejun