From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.11 1/3] cgroup: mark "tasks" cgroup file as insane Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 13:01:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20130604200149.GD14916@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20130604021302.GH29989@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130604112139.GD31242@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=/9yuGES1LIlhPYb/4/ij6y6CtAgwQgxKQLCRAaWs+FY=; b=TEzxIFZR/48ePzD8QGEwZsi7KPsoXmDuGFrlmSxpzPSGxY6stox6fpedTMtj4P7rbe 5VliKzbKGImNghUD3RyxJx9ghyndZcvc139Wnvq5msjJBgO+Xff7gbryBjaGXsrOcbHZ AWQi3LwqeACk+V/NVGXrKYDQvU63cvNcIK43ZAdwCkQlFe2dBIoSp+kzlnwke/mqkOui hwJ1xDaDDvIUfqb77tzb2goOjAb0Ln+8RD8uvk10JUdcVXkhpnW8W0liApU7lpEiUmnX eYFQKpUuBiIOcSbZ0cIEzGPA/Zx+/2GL1rxgSKL5nJiR7f29GoD0wUeh0uHwsS6b+mkJ FsoA== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130604112139.GD31242-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@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: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, kay.sievers-tD+1rO4QERM@public.gmane.org, Vivek Goyal , lennart-mdGvqq1h2p+GdvJs77BJ7Q@public.gmane.org, Johannes Weiner , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 01:21:39PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 03-06-13 19:13:02, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Some resources controlled by cgroup aren't per-task and cgroup core > > allowing threads of a single thread_group to be in different cgroups > > forced memcg do explicitly find the group leader and use it. This is > > gonna be nasty when transitioning to unified hierarchy and in general > > we don't want and won't support granularity finer than processes. > > > > Mark "tasks" with CFTYPE_INSANE. > > Hmm, I wasn't aware that procs is a better interface to work with > entities in the group so I was using tasks which worked well for memcg. > I am afraid I am not the only one. Can we get a warning when somebody > opens the file? > > That being said, I do not object against removal, please just add a > warning to let people know that procs is a preferred interface. Hmmm... I don't know. For users of multiple hierarchies, tasks are fine. It's only gonna be an issue when we transition to unified hierarchy where a lot of other things would change too. I'm not sure whether it'd be worthwhile to generate a warning now for everyone. Li, what do you think? Thanks. -- tejun