On 06/01/2017 05:18 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 05:12:42PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> Are you referring to keeping the no internal process restriction and >> document how to work around that instead? I would like to hear what >> workarounds are currently being used. > What we've been talking about all along - just creating explicit leaf > nodes. > >> Anyway, you currently allow internal process in thread mode, but not in >> non-thread mode. I would prefer no such restriction in both thread and >> non-thread mode. > Heh, so, these aren't arbitrary. The contraint is tied to > implementing resource domains and thread subtree doesn't have resource > domains in them, so they don't need the constraint. I'm sorry about > the short replies but I'm kinda really tied up right now. I'm gonna > do the thread mode so that it can be agnostic w.r.t. the internal > process constraint and I think it could be helpful to decouple these > discussions. We've been having this discussion for a couple years now > and it looks like we're gonna go through it all over, which is fine, > but let's at least keep that separate. I wouldn't argue further on that if you insist. However, I still want to relax the constraint somewhat by abandoning the no internal process constraint when only threaded controllers (non-resource domains) are enabled even when thread mode has not been explicitly enabled. It is a modified version my second alternative. Now the question is which controllers are considered to be resource domains. I think memory and blkio are in the list. What else do you think should be considered resource domains? Cheers, Longman any of the resource domains (!threaded) controllers are enabled. -- 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
