| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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