Hello, Mike. On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 07:39:24AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > 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
In the new interface, hierarchy setup and controller configuration are two separate steps. Creating subhierarchy doesn't enable controller automatically and as long as specific controllers are concerned nothing changes when subhierarchy is created and processes are moved inbetween them. If control over specific resources is necessary in a given hierarchy, the matching controllers should be enabled explicitly. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
