Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets

[James Kosin <jkosin@intcomgrp.com>]

On 5/12/2010 9:50 AM, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 15:05 +0200, Dhaval Giani wrote:
>>> Where cpusets goes wrong is to have a *no* default values.
>>
>> It has a default, empty is still a valid value.
>>
> 
> Well, it is still not sane. And in the part you snipped, I did mention,
> 
>>> do we enforce a policy to have sane defaults
>>> for subsystems if they prevent attaching "regular" tasks by default.
> 
> And to add to it, a sane default can be defined as one, where a task
> can be attached to a cgroup on creation without changing any other
> parameter.
> 
> Dhaval

By keeping the insane policy, we force everyone to properly setup to
sane defaults.  By automatically inheriting the defaults, we would be
introducing the possibility of a lazy programmer forgetting to setup the
proper defaults for their application which may need different values
than the inherited settings.  This would lead to ensuing chaos eventually.

James