>>> Some degree of flexibility is provided so that you may disable some >>> controllers >>> in a subtree. For example: >>> >>> root ---> child1 >>> (cpuset,memory,cpu) (cpuset,memory) >>> \ >>> \-> child2 >>> (cpu) >> >> Whew, that's a relief. Thanks. > > But somehow I'm not feeling a whole lot better. > > "May" means if you don't explicitly take some action to disable group > scheduling, you get it (I don't care if I have an off button), but that > would also seemingly mean that we would then have rt tasks in taskgroups > with no bandwidth allocated, ie you have to make group scheduling for rt > tasks meaningless until a bandwidth appeared, and to make bandwidth > appear, you'd have to stop the world, distribute, continue, no? > > The current "just say no" seems a lot more sensible. >
I just realized we allow removing/adding controllers from/to cgroups while there are tasks in them, which isn't safe unless we eliminate all can_attach callbacks. We've done so for some cgroup subsystems, but there are still a few of them... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
