[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a4912516-8c6b-d8d3-b714-5c03bcfc5e91@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:40:57 +0200
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: mtk.manpages@...il.com,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Cgroup v2 thread mode oddity: "domain invalid" cgroup with threaded
controller enabled
Hello Tejun,
Suppose we have the following scenario:
x [d] (pids)
y [dt] (pids)
p [t]
q [t]
r [t]
z [d]
Here, x/y is a "domain threaded root" with a threaded controller
(the 'pids' controller) enabled. (In this scenario, there are no
member processes in any of the cgroups.)
Suppose we now convert x/z to "threaded" type:
# echo threaded > x/z/cgroup.type
Now we end up in the following state:
x [dt] (pids)
y [inv] (pids)
p [t]
q [t]
r [t]
z [t]
This seems odd. x/y is now of "domain invalid" type with a controller
enabled! This feels like a violation of the rules, since we can't
in other circumstances do anything with a "domain invalid" cgroup
except convert it to "threaded". In particular, we can't create
child cgroups under a "domain invalid" cgroup, or add member processes
to the cgroup, or *enable controllers in the cgroup*. In fact, when
doing the
# echo threaded > x/z/cgroup.type
I had expected a write(2) error because the state of x/y should
(I thought) not be permitted.
Your thoughts?
Thanks,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists