Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] cgroup: make sure parent won't be destroyed before its children

Glauber Costa
2013-04-05T08:10:02Z

On 04/04/2013 07:22 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 05:20:28PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> But what harm does an additional reference do?
>>
>> No harm at all. I just wanted to be sure that this is not yet another
>> "for memcg" hack. So if this is useful for other controllers then I have
>> no objections of course.
>
> I think it makes sense in general, so let's do it in cgroup core. I
> suppose it'd be easier for this to be routed together with other memcg
> changes?
>
> Thanks.
>
You guys seems already settled, but FWIW I agree with Tejun here. It
makes sense from a design point of view for a cgroup to pin its parent.
cgroup core it is.