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 10:11:20 -0700 Message-ID: <20120912171120.GP7677@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> 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=dqcfEPtDMXzvg/Vis/c8Sm/MYKydQPVM3C3HcFNKZP0=; b=uLWXoYp1boeZQi5Fqe+I9o6RPRNVXUr7duaM/i23Fwcj7DodCoq3W6/9m59kwBO3eS o8K/3h0w4VfUoeteKmC9cLXXwqNlNe/cmNvXAPr/vYng3+6YmETGtissz6hHTeF3Tkut Y0rFeCtZA4tu1/2xcOqNNqFcwBQ89xmrSCieOgy6AgewBMcusm9GcCqYuuZPxq/0dXv0 zKqbsjjslR8E3qAzuHOK1FUzVSJ/P3oBLpGvV/HbxszFrPwLuY3XTNk8hP2W5ENdsZCK zq0rrQ7J4O0KXp6UkYdR3/PzLxsywrWOjDU4rcwi1WGIkuDmPasY3jUkUN2ZXxW6bwe/ uJqg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120912154907.GW21579-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@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, 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? Thanks. -- tejun