lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] Have sane default values for cpusets
From
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:36 PM, Paul Menage <menage@google.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I think the idea is reasonable - the only way that I could see it
>>>> breaking someone would be code that currently does something like:
>>>>
>>>> mkdir A
>>>> mkdir B
>>>> echo 1 > A/mem_exclusive
>>>> echo 1 > B/mem_exclusive
>>>> echo $mems_for_a > A/mems
>>>> echo $mems_for_b > B/mems
>>>>
>>>> The attempts to set the mem_exclusive flags would fail, since A and B
>>>> would both have all of the parent's mems.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But would this not fail otherwise?
>>>
>>
>> Assuming that mems_for_a and mems_for_b were disjoint, it would be
>> fine currently.
>>
>
> Ah my bad. I misread mems_for_a as taking the value from the parent.
> You are right, that was a case I missed.
>
> Hmm, so how do we fix this? Any solutions? Not fixing the kernel
> pushes the problem to the userspace, making it hard for tons of more
> applications to use cgroups without jumping through a lot of hoops.
>

OK, how about this. Introduce a new option, nodefaults (or some such
name) which would retain the existing behaviour while the default
mount options would moutn cpuset with the defaults. Also, make

mount -t cpuset cpuset /cpuset

equivalent to

mount -t cgroup -onoprefix,nodefaults,cpuset cpuset /cpuset

Would that work?

Thanks,
Dhaval


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-13 12:29    [W:0.078 / U:0.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site