[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1430748582.3166.16.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 16:09:42 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.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, 2015-05-04 at 14:37 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?
That's what I'd hope for. I wanted to try that cgroup.subtree_control
gizmo to see for myself, but I don't have one, and probably won't get
one until I introduce systemd to my axe (again, it's a slow learner).
-Mike
--
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