[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150504123738.GZ21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 14:37:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can_attach()
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:11:10PM +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
> Some degree of flexibility is provided so that you may disable some controllers
> in a subtree. For example:
>
> root ---> child1
> (cpuset,memory,cpu) (cpuset,memory)
> \
> \-> child2
> (cpu)
Uhm, how does that work? Would a task their effective cgroup be the
first parent that has a controller enabled?
In particular, in your example, if T were part of child1, would its cpu
controller be root?
> I just realized we allow removing/adding controllers from/to cgroups
> while there are tasks in them, which isn't safe unless we eliminate all
> can_attach callbacks. We've done so for some cgroup subsystems, but
> there are still a few of them...
You can't remove can_attach(), we must be able to disallow joining a
cgroup.
If that results in you not being able to change the cgroup setup with
tasks in, so be it -- that seems like a sane restriction anyhow.
--
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