On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:11:10PM +0800, Zefan Li wrote: > Some degree of flexibility is provided so that you may disable some controllers > in a subtree. For example: > > root ---> child1 > (cpuset,memory,cpu) (cpuset,memory) > \ > \-> child2 > (cpu) Uhm, how does that work? Would a task their effective cgroup be the first parent that has a controller enabled? In particular, in your example, if T were part of child1, would its cpu controller be root? > I just realized we allow removing/adding controllers from/to cgroups > while there are tasks in them, which isn't safe unless we eliminate all > can_attach callbacks. We've done so for some cgroup subsystems, but > there are still a few of them... You can't remove can_attach(), we must be able to disallow joining a cgroup. If that results in you not being able to change the cgroup setup with tasks in, so be it -- that seems like a sane restriction anyhow. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
