On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:53:11AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > However, what you've really done just now is flattened the resource > hierarchy. You configured the_workload not just more important than > its sibling "misc", but you actually pulled it up the resource tree > and declared it more important than what's running in other sessions, > what users are running, and even the system software. Your cgroup tree > still reflects process ownership, but it doesn't actually reflect the > resource hierarchy you just configured. Just to second this point, anything moving in this direction will be a hard nack from me. We don't want use_hierarchy for cgroup2 and I'm baffled that this is even being suggested seriously. If we have learned *anything* from cgroup1's mistakes, this should be the one. Thanks. -- tejun
