lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them
On Thu 13-09-12 10:18:32, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 02:14:38PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I would like to see use_hierarchy go away. The only concern I have is
> > to warn only if somebody is doing something wrong (aka flat
> > hierarchies). Or better put it this way. Do not warn in cases which do
> > not change if use_hierarchy is gone or default changes to 1.
> > An example:
> > root (use_hierarchy=0)
> > | \
> > | A (use_hierarchy=0)
> > |
> > B (use_hierarachy=1)
> > |\
> > C D
> >
> > is a perfectly sane configuration and I do not see any reason to fill
> > logs with some scary warnings when A is created. There will be no
> > semantical change in this setup When use_hierchy is gone.
> >
> > So the only thing I am proposing here is to warn only if something
> > should be fixed in the configuration in order to be prepared for fully
> > hierarchical (and that is a second level of children from root with
> > use_hierachy==0).
> >
> > Does it make more sense now?
>
> Ah, okay, so what you're saying is that we shouldn't warn if 0
> .use_hierarchys don't make any behavior difference from when they're
> all 1, right?

Exactly. 1st level of children under the root is exactly this kind of
setup.

> If so, I have no objection. Will incorporate your updated version.

Thanks!

--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-13 20:21    [W:0.061 / U:2.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site