Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 May 2010 10:11:08 -0400 | From | James Kosin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets |
| |
On 5/12/2010 9:50 AM, Dhaval Giani wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >> On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 15:05 +0200, Dhaval Giani wrote: >>> Where cpusets goes wrong is to have a *no* default values. >> >> It has a default, empty is still a valid value. >> > > Well, it is still not sane. And in the part you snipped, I did mention, > >>> do we enforce a policy to have sane defaults >>> for subsystems if they prevent attaching "regular" tasks by default. > > And to add to it, a sane default can be defined as one, where a task > can be attached to a cgroup on creation without changing any other > parameter. > > Dhaval
By keeping the insane policy, we force everyone to properly setup to sane defaults. By automatically inheriting the defaults, we would be introducing the possibility of a lazy programmer forgetting to setup the proper defaults for their application which may need different values than the inherited settings. This would lead to ensuing chaos eventually.
James
| |