[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830802010735y1caac967sb12a96b7d54f4ca3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 07:35:46 -0800
From: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com>
To: "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, "Balbir Singh" <balbir@...ibm.com>,
pj@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Default child of a cgroup
On Jan 31, 2008 11:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > Is there a restriction in CFS that stops a given group from
> > simultaneously holding tasks and sub-groups? If so, couldn't we change
> > CFS to make it possible rather than enforcing awkward restrictions on
> > cgroups?
>
> I think it is possible, just way more work than the proposed hack.
Seems to me like the right thing to do though.
>
> > If we really can't change CFS in that way, then an alternative would
> > be similar to Peter's suggestion - make cpu_cgroup_can_attach() fail
> > if the cgroup has children, and make cpu_cgroup_create() fail if the
> > cgroup has any tasks - that way you limit the restriction to just the
> > hierarchy that has CFS attached to it, rather than generically for all
> > cgroups
>
> Agreed.
>
Actually, I realised later that this is impossible - since the root
cgroup will have tasks initially, there'd be no way to create the
first child cgroup in the CFS hierarchy.
Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists