[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 11:46:00 +0800
From: Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 2015/5/4 22:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 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?
correct.
>
> 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).
>
I'm testing in an environment without systemd.
You need to mount cgroup with a special option:
# mount -t cgroup -o __DEVEL__sane_behavior xxx /where
If a cgroup controller has already been mounted without this option,
you won't see it in the unified hierarchy, so firstly you need to
delete all cgroups in it and umount it.
--
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