On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:02:52 +0000 "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:57:38PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:22:07 +0000 > > "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 04:58:44PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote: > > > > Make sure the thread related controls of the machine cgroup > > > > never get any tasks assigned. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Henning Schild <henning.schild@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > src/qemu/qemu_cgroup.c | 14 ++++++++++++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > NACK This also won't work for same reason as previous patch > > > > Having that in place can still be useful after we have sorted out > > the random result of what systemd gave us. > > Is the general idea of such an assertion a good idea, and should i > > adopt it according to comments? > > At the moment i just used the assertion mask in the only code-path > > that adds tasks within libvirt. If we have to deal with > > manipulation from the outside, it might be a good idea to introduce > > more assertions based on the mask. > > Without patch 4 though, there's nowhere you can put this afaict. After moving the pid to the emulator cgroup, i can assert that the parent is now empty and then put it in place. It would assert libvirt itself does not use the parent group somewhen in the future. > > > Regards, > Daniel -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list