[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181108154617.GX9761@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 16:46:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com, luto@...capital.net,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Tom Hromatka <tom.hromatka@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 12/12] cpuset: Expose cpuset.cpus.subpartitions with
cgroup_debug
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:08:46AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> For debugging purpose, it will be useful to expose the content of the
> subparts_cpus as a read-only file to see if the code work correctly.
> However, subparts_cpus will not be used at all in most use cases. So
> adding a new cpuset file that clutters the cgroup directory may not be
> desirable. This is now being done by using the hidden "cgroup_debug"
> kernel command line option to expose a new "cpuset.cpus.subpartitions"
> file.
One thought I had; would it make sense to make these debug files hidden
("." prefix) ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists