* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 19:23 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > perf_event cgroup controller is one of the remaining few with broken > > hierarchy support. It turns out it's pretty easy to implement - the > > only thing necessary is making perf_cgroup_match() return %true also > > when the cgroup of the current task is a descendant of the event's > > cgroup. This patchset implements cgroup_is_descendant() and uses it > > to implement hierarchy support in perf_event controller. > > > > This patchset contains the following three patches. > > > > 0001-cgroup-make-sure-parent-won-t-be-destroyed-before-it.patch > > 0002-cgroup-implement-cgroup_is_descendant.patch > > 0003-perf-make-perf_event-cgroup-hierarchical.patch > > Thanks, looks simple and straight fwd. > > > Ingo, how should these be routed? > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/cgroup.git perf_event-hierarchy-support > > Ingo typically likes multi-maintainer sets to be pulled from a common > tree into all relevant maintainer trees so that git merges afterwards > just-work (tm). But I'll let him expand. Yeah - at least for larger changes that's a good workflow. For smaller changes we can pick one or the other tree. Tejun, do these changes create any conflicts with the current tip:master tree? If not then you could carry these changes in your tree. If there's significant conflicts then it might be better to rebase this on top of perf/core and pull them into perf/core. (assuming there's no other cgroups prereq patches beyond the ones in this series.) Thanks, Ingo _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
