On 2015/5/4 22:09, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 14:37 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> 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? correct. > > That's what I'd hope for. I wanted to try that cgroup.subtree_control > gizmo to see for myself, but I don't have one, and probably won't get > one until I introduce systemd to my axe (again, it's a slow learner). > I'm testing in an environment without systemd. You need to mount cgroup with a special option: # mount -t cgroup -o __DEVEL__sane_behavior xxx /where If a cgroup controller has already been mounted without this option, you won't see it in the unified hierarchy, so firstly you need to delete all cgroups in it and umount it. -- 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
