From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Glauber Costa <glommer-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org>
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 16:01:40 +0400
Message-ID: <5051CB24.4010801@parallels.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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120912171120.GP7677-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: <cgroups.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/containers>, 
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/containers/>
List-Post: <mailto:containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers>,
	<mailto:containers-request-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
To: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ@public.gmane.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme-f8uhVLnGfZaxAyOMLChx1axOck334EZe@public.gmane.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>, Thomas Graf <tgraf-G/eBtMaohhA@public.gmane.org>, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Paul Turner <pjt-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>

On 09/12/2012 09:11 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 05:49:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> While I respect your goal of not warning about any configuration
>>> with max_level = 1, I believe the only sane configuration as soon
>>> as we get any 2nd-level child is use_hierarchy = 1 for everybody.
>>>
>>> Everything aside from it should be warned.
>>
>> Defintely. And that what the above guarantess, doesn't it?
> 
> I'm getting a bit worried that I might not be fully understanding what
> your concern is.  Can you please elaborate what your worries are and
> the transition plan that you have in your mind regarding
> .use_hierarchy?
> 

This is getting confusing for me as well, because I don't know if your
reply was targeted towards me or Michal. As for me, I am in agreement
with what you did, and I merely replied to Michal's concern and
suggestion of not warning in the special 1-st level only setups saying I
side with you.