Hello, On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:27:58AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >> /dlgt_grp/cgroup.subtree_control > >> Making this file owned by the delegatee is optional. > >> Doing so means that that the delegatee can enable con‐ > >> trollers (that are present in /dlgt_grp/cgroup.con‐ > >> trollers) in order to further redistribute resources at > >> lower levels in the subtree. As an alternative to > >> changing the ownership of this file, the delegater might > >> instead add selected controllers to this file. > > > > I'm not sure how useful it is to describe this to be optional. In the > > same sense, cgroup.procs would be optional too as the delegatee can > > take control from its first children. Users of course can choose to > > do mix and match as they see fit but outside of the defined model, > > there can be surprises - e.g. nsdelegate or some future delegation > > aware feature can behave differently. I think it'd be better to keep > > it simple - either a subtree is delegated or not. > > So, I changed that piece to: > > /dlgt_grp/cgroup.subtree_control > Changing the ownership of this file means that that the > delegatee can enable controllers (that are present in > /dlgt_grp/cgroup.controllers) in order to further redis‐ > tribute resources at lower levels in the subtree. (As an > alternative to changing the ownership of this file, the > delegater might instead add selected controllers to this > file.) > > Okay? I haven't thought much about not giving out cgroup.subtree_control when delegating. It's probably okay but there can be surprises - e.g. systemd or other agent failing to init resource control because it failed to write to subtree_control at root. Also, given that the recommended way to delegate is now chown all files in the /sys/kernel/cgroup/delegate file it's a bit weird to single out subtree_control. That said, not necessarily an objection. I'm just not sure about it. > > Roman recently added /sys/kernel/cgroup/delegate and > > /sys/kernel/cgroup/features. The former contains newline separated > > list of cgroup files which should be chowned on delegation (in > > addition to the directory itself) and the latter contains optional > > features (currently only nsdelegate). > > Oh -- and this reminds that I've been meaning to ask you for a while > now: could you please (please please please) CC all cgroup interface > changes to linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (and prod others to do so > please). There have been many of these changes in recent times > (addition of new v2 controllers, thread mode, nsdelegate, the > changes that Roman made that you refer to above), and they really > all should have been CCed to linux-api@. It's often the only (easy) > way that I have to discover changes that should be documented in > the manual pages. And there are many other groups that are also > interested in tracking kernel-user-space interface changes; see > https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/linux-api-ml.html Sorry about having not added them before. Will try to. Please feel free to scream at me if I forget. > > Also, if nsdelegate is enabled, both the source and destination > > cgroups must be visible (cgroup namespace-wise) to the writer. > > I added the following: > > * If the cgroup v2 filesystem was mounted with the nsdelegate > option, the writer must be able to see the source and destina‐ > tion cgroup from its cgroup namespace. > > Okay? Yeah, thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
