On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 03:23:15PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Kirill A. Shutsemov
<kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > +static int tslack_write_range(struct cgroup *cgroup, struct cftype *cft,
> > + u64 val)
> > +{
> > + struct timer_slack_cgroup *tslack_cgroup;
> > + struct cgroup_iter it;
> > + struct task_struct *task;
> > +
> > + if (!val)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + tslack_cgroup = cgroup_to_tslack_cgroup(cgroup);
> > + switch (cft->private) {
> > + case TIMER_SLACK_MIN:
> > + if (val > tslack_cgroup->max_slack_ns)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + tslack_cgroup->min_slack_ns = val;
> > + break;
> > + case TIMER_SLACK_MAX:
> > + if (val < tslack_cgroup->min_slack_ns)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + tslack_cgroup->max_slack_ns = val;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + BUG();
> > + }
> > +
>
> Don't we want to keep the min/max applied hierarchically as well? i.e.
> a child can't set its min/max outside the range of its parents?
That was my expectation as well.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
