On 2012/9/11 6:33, Tejun Heo wrote: > (forgot cc'ing containers / cgroups mailing lists and used the old > address for Li. Reposting. Sorry for the noise.) > > Currently, cgroup hierarchy support is a mess. cpu related subsystems > behave correctly - configuration, accounting and control on a parent > properly cover its children. blkio and freezer completely ignore > hierarchy and treat all cgroups as if they're directly under the root > cgroup. Others show yet different behaviors. > > These differing interpretations of cgroup hierarchy make using cgroup > confusing and it impossible to co-mount controllers into the same > hierarchy and obtain sane behavior. > > Eventually, we want full hierarchy support from all subsystems and > probably a unified hierarchy. Users using separate hierarchies > expecting completely different behaviors depending on the mounted > subsystem is deterimental to making any progress on this front. > > This patch adds cgroup_subsys.broken_hierarchy and sets it to %true > for controllers which are lacking in hierarchy support. The goal of > this patch is two-fold. > > * Move users away from using hierarchy on currently non-hierarchical > subsystems, so that implementing proper hierarchy support on those > doesn't surprise them. > > * Keep track of which controllers are broken how and nudge the > subsystems to implement proper hierarchy support. > > For now, start with a single warning message. We can whine louder > later on. > > (I tried to document what's broken and how it should be fixed. If I > got something wrong, please let me know.) > So isn't cpuset broken too? child cpuset's cpu mask isn't necessary a subset of the parent's if the cpu_exclusive flag is not set. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
