[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170718184714.GA3365493@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 14:47:14 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: lizefan@...wei.com, hannes@...xchg.org, mingo@...hat.com,
longman@...hat.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com,
luto@...capital.net, efault@....de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
guro@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cgroup: implement cgroup v2 thread support
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 08:41:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:54:56PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > Okay, we're kinda off the rails now. Just to verify that we're on the
> > same page, are you also saying that the following should be a valid
> > configuration?
> >
> > R (D)
> > |
> > A (D and has processes in it and controllers enabled)
> > |
> > C (D and has processes in it)
> >
>
> Argh, the no internal process thing again -- I completely forgot about
> that :-(
Heh, yeah, we wouldn't be talking about all these otherwise. The
restriction is pain in the ass but at the same time useful for
full(er)-scope resource control. Were there other things that caught
your eyes?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists