On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 03:14:52PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Michal. > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:08:09AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > According to my experience, people usually create deeper subtrees > > just because they want to have memcg hierarchy together with other > > controller(s) and the other controller requires a different topology > > but then they do not care about memory.* attributes in parents. > > Those cases are not affected by this change because parents are > > unlimited by default. > > Deeper subtrees without hierarchy and independent limits are usually > > mis-configurations, and we would like to hear about those to help to fix > > them, or they are unfixable usecases which we want to know about as well > > (because then we have a blocker for the unified cgroup hierarchy, don't > > we). > > Yeah, this is something I'm seriously considering doing from cgroup > core. ie. generating a warning message if the user nests cgroups w/ > controllers which don't support full hierarchy. BTW, this is another reason I'm suggesting mount time option so that cgroup core can be told that the specific controller is hierarchy-aware. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>