On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 11:24:18AM GMT, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I still don't see why this behavior is better. Wouldn't this make it easy to > escape IO limits by creating cgroups, doing a bunch of IOs and then deleting > them? IIUC, bios are flushed to parent throttl group, so if there's an ancestral limit, it should be honored. (I find this similar to memcg reparenting.) Mere create + set limit + delete falls under the same delegation scope, so if that limit is bypassed, it is only self-shooting in the leg. Shortening the lifetime of offlined structures is benefitial, no? Michal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
