[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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 <> 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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-12 16:21    [W:0.093 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site