[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170718175456.GH585283@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:54:56 -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
Hello, Peter.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 07:28:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And now try to create another child C, should that be a domain or
> > threaded?
>
> Domain of course, as R must be a domain, and hence all its children
> start out as such.
I don't think it's a matter of course as R also is the root of a
threaded subtree, but this is more or less bikeshedding.
> > If we only inherit from the second level on, which is in itself
> > already confusing, that still leads to invalid configs for non-root
> > thread roots.
>
> I don't see how. I don't get the example Waiman gave, what is wrong
> with:
>
> R (D)
> |
> A (D)
> / \
> C(D) B(T)
>
> ? Afaict that's a perfectly valid configuration.
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)
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists