From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Li Zefan 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 14:48:02 +0800 Message-ID: <505181A2.1040004@huawei.com> References: <20120910223125.GC7677@google.com> <20120910223355.GD7677@google.com> <504F30DB.60808@huawei.com> <20120911170837.GM7677@google.com> <20120911174319.GO7677@google.com> <505057D8.4010908@parallels.com> <20120912163433.GL7677@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120912163433.GL7677-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: Tejun Heo 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 On 2012/9/13 0:34, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:37:28PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: >> "If a cpuset is cpu or mem exclusive, no other cpuset, other than >> a direct ancestor or descendant, may share any of the same CPUs or >> Memory Nodes." >> >> So I think it tricked me as well. I was under the impression that >> "exclusive" would also disallow the kids. > > You two are confusing me even more. AFAICS, the hierarchical > properties don't seem to change whether exclusive is set or not. It > still ensures children can't have something parent doesn't allow and > exclusive applies to whether to share something with siblings, so I > don't think anything is broken hierarchy-wise. Am I missing > something? If so, please be explicit and elaborate where and how it's > broken. > Ignore it. I misunderstood the exclusive flag. Sorry for the noise. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756024Ab2IMGtT (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:49:19 -0400 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:29220 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754137Ab2IMGtP (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Sep 2012 02:49:15 -0400 Message-ID: <505181A2.1040004@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:48:02 +0800 From: Li Zefan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: Glauber Costa , , , , Michal Hocko , 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 References: <20120910223125.GC7677@google.com> <20120910223355.GD7677@google.com> <504F30DB.60808@huawei.com> <20120911170837.GM7677@google.com> <20120911174319.GO7677@google.com> <505057D8.4010908@parallels.com> <20120912163433.GL7677@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20120912163433.GL7677@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.135.68.215] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2012/9/13 0:34, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:37:28PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: >> "If a cpuset is cpu or mem exclusive, no other cpuset, other than >> a direct ancestor or descendant, may share any of the same CPUs or >> Memory Nodes." >> >> So I think it tricked me as well. I was under the impression that >> "exclusive" would also disallow the kids. > > You two are confusing me even more. AFAICS, the hierarchical > properties don't seem to change whether exclusive is set or not. It > still ensures children can't have something parent doesn't allow and > exclusive applies to whether to share something with siblings, so I > don't think anything is broken hierarchy-wise. Am I missing > something? If so, please be explicit and elaborate where and how it's > broken. > Ignore it. I misunderstood the exclusive flag. Sorry for the noise.