[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47CEC614.7060705@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:41:00 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
linux-mm@...ck.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Memory Resource Controller Add Boot Option
Paul Menage wrote:
>>> I'll send out a prototype for comment.
>
> Something like the patch below. The effects of cgroup_disable=foo are:
>
> - foo doesn't show up in /proc/cgroups
> - foo isn't auto-mounted if you mount all cgroups in a single hierarchy
> - foo isn't visible as an individually mountable subsystem
>
> As a result there will only ever be one call to foo->create(), at init
> time; all processes will stay in this group, and the group will never be
> mounted on a visible hierarchy. Any additional effects (e.g. not
> allocating metadata) are up to the foo subsystem.
>
> This doesn't handle early_init subsystems (their "disabled" bit isn't
> set be, but it could easily be extended to do so if any of the
> early_init systems wanted it - I think it would just involve some
> nastier parameter processing since it would occur before the
> command-line argument parser had been run.
>
> include/linux/cgroup.h | 1 +
> kernel/cgroup.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: cgroup_disable-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/include/linux/cgroup.h
> ===================================================================
> --- cgroup_disable-2.6.25-rc2-mm1.orig/include/linux/cgroup.h
> +++ cgroup_disable-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/include/linux/cgroup.h
> @@ -256,6 +256,7 @@ struct cgroup_subsys {
> void (*bind)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *root);
> int subsys_id;
> int active;
> + int disabled;
> int early_init;
> #define MAX_CGROUP_TYPE_NAMELEN 32
> const char *name;
> Index: cgroup_disable-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/kernel/cgroup.c
> ===================================================================
> --- cgroup_disable-2.6.25-rc2-mm1.orig/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ cgroup_disable-2.6.25-rc2-mm1/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -790,7 +790,14 @@ static int parse_cgroupfs_options(char *
> if (!*token)
> return -EINVAL;
> if (!strcmp(token, "all")) {
> - opts->subsys_bits = (1 << CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT) - 1;
> + /* Add all non-disabled subsystems */
> + int i;
> + opts->subsys_bits = 0;
> + for (i = 0; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
> + struct cgroup_subsys *ss = subsys[i];
> + if (!ss->disabled)
> + opts->subsys_bits |= 1ul << i;
> + }
> } else if (!strcmp(token, "noprefix")) {
> set_bit(ROOT_NOPREFIX, &opts->flags);
> } else if (!strncmp(token, "release_agent=", 14)) {
> @@ -808,7 +815,8 @@ static int parse_cgroupfs_options(char *
> for (i = 0; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
> ss = subsys[i];
> if (!strcmp(token, ss->name)) {
> - set_bit(i, &opts->subsys_bits);
> + if (!ss->disabled)
> + set_bit(i, &opts->subsys_bits);
> break;
> }
> }
> @@ -2596,6 +2606,8 @@ static int proc_cgroupstats_show(struct
> mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
> for (i = 0; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
> struct cgroup_subsys *ss = subsys[i];
> + if (ss->disabled)
> + continue;
> seq_printf(m, "%s\t%lu\t%d\n",
> ss->name, ss->root->subsys_bits,
> ss->root->number_of_cgroups);
> @@ -2991,3 +3003,16 @@ static void cgroup_release_agent(struct
> spin_unlock(&release_list_lock);
> mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
> }
> +
> +static int __init cgroup_disable(char *str)
> +{
> + int i;
> + for (i = 0; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
> + struct cgroup_subsys *ss = subsys[i];
> + if (!strcmp(str, ss->name)) {
> + ss->disabled = 1;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +__setup("cgroup_disable=", cgroup_disable);
>
Hi, Paul,
I am going to go ahead and test this patch. If they work fine, I'll request you
to send them out, so that we can get them in by 2.6.25.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
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