lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch] cgroups: disallow attaching kthreadd
From
Date
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 00:15 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: 
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > The hazzards of moving kthreadd into a non-root cgroup is still present
> > in mainline. Last go 'round stalled with Peter not liking the
> > cpuset,cpu per controller specific exclusion. I agree that total
> > exclusion is the better option, and below is a respin doing that.
> >
>
> We've been through this several times now iterating between two different
> functional changes. I appreciate the persistence, but please, again,
> explain why you are doing this at the cgroups level rather than the
> cpusets level?
>
> The last time we discussed this, you had proposed a patch to only do this
> for cpusets after the points I'm about to bring up for the fifth time.
> Peter ended up not responding and as I remember it didn't have strong
> feelings against doing it only for cpusets. And here we are, yet again,
> back to the cgroups version.

Suggest a third version.

> There's _nothing_ wrong with attaching a kthread to most cgroups. We do
> it for memcg. And now you're trying to break it for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.

Oh, caps made that so much more legible.

One, I don't see what it's breaking, and two, the reason for this repeat
is that the last attempt with cpuset,cpu exclusion did not fly.

I don't care how it gets fixed. I just thought I should mention that
the problem is still alive upstream, did that, and was told I should try
this way again with CCs.

Ok, so you NAK this way, Peter NAKS the other way, and the bug lives on
forever. So be it.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-04 12:41    [W:0.121 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site