[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120912171120.GP7677@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:11:20 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with
broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them
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
--
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