[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50AA3B5E.3080701@bmw-carit.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:59:58 +0100
From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
<nhorman@...driver.com>, <tgraf@...g.ch>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<lizefan@...wei.com>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.8] netcls_cgroup: implement hierarchy
support
Hi Tejun,
On 17.11.2012 04:30, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, guys.
>
> This patchset implements proper hierarchy support for netcls_cgroup.
> Pretty simliar to the netprio one[3]. Simpler as each cgroup has
> single config value instead of array of them.
>
> This patchset contains the following three patches.
>
> 0001-netcls_cgroup-introduce-netcls_mutex.patch
> 0002-netcls_cgroup-introduce-cgroup_cls_state-is_local.patch
> 0003-netcls_cgroup-implement-proper-hierarchy-support.patch
>
> This patchset is on top of
>
> cgroup/for-3.8 ef9fe980c6 ("cgroup_freezer: implement proper hierarchy support")
> + [1] "[PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.8] cgroup: allow ->post_create() to fail"
> + [2] "[PATCH 1/2] cgroup: s/CGRP_CLONE_CHILDREN/CGRP_CPUSET_CLONE_CHILDREN/"
> "[PATCH 2/2] cgroup, cpuset: remove cgroup_subsys->post_clone()"
> + [3] "[PATCHSET cgroup/for-3.8] netprio_cgroup: implement hierarchy support"
>
> and available in the following git branch.
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/cgroup.git review-netcls_cgroup-hierarchy
>
> diffstat follows.
>
> include/net/cls_cgroup.h | 1
> net/sched/cls_cgroup.c | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> Thanks.
I played a bit around with this series, e.g. creating a hierarchy and and changing
the root classid and seeing the change propagating through the hierarchy. Everything
worked as described in the documentation.
Sorry to bring this up again: how should to root cgroup behave? If the ultimate
goal to have only one single hierarchy then I would assume it is important that
the semantic for all controllers are the same. As you pointed out the networking
controllers are kind of a strange beast in the zoo of the cgroup controllers.
But still I would assume that all root controllers behave the same. memcg or cpu*
are not expected to do any work in the root cgroup.
cheers,
daniel
--
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