[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170722134358.GB3329631@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2017 09:43:58 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...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 v2 1/4] cgroup: Child cgroup creation not allowed on
invalid domain
Hello, Waiman.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 04:34:50PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> When thread mode is used, it is possible that some cgroups may be
> in an invalid state. Currently users may not be aware that they are
> invalid until they try to migrate tasks over. This patch disallows
> child cgroup creation on invalid domain. This adds one more failure
> point in reminding users that they are dealing with invalid domains.
> It also minimizes the number of invalid domains outstanding as much
> as possible.
It's a bit inconsistent because we can reach the same forbidden state
by turning a sibling cgroup threaded. Please consider the following.
A
/ \
B C
\
D
Let's say all are domains and we make B threaded. A becomes the
threaded domain, C and D become invalid, which is the configuration
you're trying to prevent. We can either enabling threaded on B too or
relax type modifications further so that people can make C threaded
which makes sense given that that would lead to a topology which has
to supported anyway (if C were threaded before D was created, it'd
look the same).
So, I'm leaning more towards relaxing restrictions and tightening it,
and given that we have to expose invalid state anyway, I think there's
actual benefit in doing so as it gives more flexibility while building
the hierarchy.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists