On Tue 11-09-12 10:07:46, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Michal. > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:04:33PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > cgroup_unlock(); > > > @@ -4953,6 +4958,7 @@ mem_cgroup_create(struct cgroup *cont) > > > &per_cpu(memcg_stock, cpu); > > > INIT_WORK(&stock->work, drain_local_stock); > > > } > > > + mem_cgroup_subsys.broken_hierarchy = !memcg->use_hierarchy; > > > > Hmmm, this will warn even if we have > > root (default use_hierarchy=0) > > \ > > A (use_hierarchy=1) > > \ > > B <- here > > > > which is unfortunate because it will add a noise to a reasonable > > configuration. > > I suppose you're talking about having root group not performing any > accounting and/or control? It doesn't do any controlling because you cannot set any limit for it. Root cgroup has always been special. > I suppose such could be a valid use case > (is it really necessary tho?) but I don't think .use_hierarchy is the > right interface for that. I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. My only concern with is that we shouldn't complain if somebody doesn't do anything wrong. And creating a group under root without any other children, no matter what use_hierarchy says, is a valid use case and we shouldn't make too much noise about that. The only difference in such a use case is that hierarchical stats will include numbers from the group only if root had use_hierarchy==1. There are no other side effects. > If it's absolutely necessary, I think it should be a root-only flag > (even if that ends up using the same code path). Eventually, we > really want to kill .use_hierarchy, or at least make it to RO 1. As > it's currently defined, it's just way too confusing. Agreed on that, definitely. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
