On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 11:46 +0800, Zefan Li wrote: > 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. Lucky you. > 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. Yeah, I found the flag, and systemd is indeed in the way. You already verified what subtree_control does, so I needn't squabble with the vile thing over cgroups possession... immediately anyway. -Mike -- 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
