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: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:34:33 -0700 Message-ID: <20120912163433.GL7677@google.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> 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=s+2aaJjM6emxlc51pNloi5gPDucnitwPAQDLrBRl3Uo=; b=Wp9re3yR8x+NCrNX3BAZwJY7Iq5YtXVvIiOrYc48ZKsdtuHCQMJ0JWgkkRr+5kEORQ hM70jm0m8T+Iw1EsAjxxugH0rLjvTdDSFKW7RSJRfZn/frRz3QTDojbUe55E1w1UZKOb UPY1UuU8rYl2wTGtABz3Ocp+4D9xmaJ5EXHAF7GVh0ROI2octSSAK3ILjLW2mkzl2v4w /RAv2+Di9A4tvr14XsQgjzab82hAGCxSL5BSslTsI4oxhclZH2dPqmUm2j6LA8eZVbcz Ii23HfdUlCPgsPjTEQH4QUl1Hix+XM8b7pS9a0MRZy+kgjI0SZho1d2QBetCQvPv2Jsm NYXQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <505057D8.4010908-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@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: Glauber Costa Cc: Neil Horman , "Serge E. Hallyn" , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Michal Hocko , 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, 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. Thanks. -- tejun