On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:26:09AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Peter. > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:14:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > AFAICT this is not in fact what I suggested... :/ > > Heh, sorry about misattributing that. I was mostly referring to the > overall idea of marking each cgroup domain or threaded rather than > subtree. > > > My proposal did not have that invalid state. It would simply refuse to > > change the type from thread to domain in the case where the parent is > > not a domain. > > > > Also, my proposal maintained the normal property inheritance rules. A > > child cgroup's creation 'type' would be that of its parent and not > > always be 'domain'. > > But aren't both of the above get weird when the parent can host both > domain and threaded children? > > R > / > A(D) > > If you create another child B under R, it's naturally gonna be a > domain. Let's say you turn that to threaded. > > R > / \ > A(D) B(T) > > And now try to create another child C, should that be a domain or > threaded? Domain of course, as R must be a domain, and hence all its children start out as such. > If we only inherit from the second level on, which is in itself > already confusing, that still leads to invalid configs for non-root > thread roots. I don't see how. I don't get the example Waiman gave, what is wrong with: R (D) | A (D) / \ C(D) B(T) ? Afaict that's a perfectly valid configuration. -- 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