Re: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them
From: Li Zefan <hidden>
Date: 2012-09-13 06:49:19
Also in:
lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2012-09-17 · Re: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them · Glauber Costa <hidden>
- 2012-09-14 · Re: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them · Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
- 2012-09-14 · Re: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them · Glauber Costa <hidden>
- 2012-09-13 · Re: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them · Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
- 2012-09-13 · Re: [PATCH REPOST RFC cgroup/for-3.7] cgroup: mark subsystems with broken hierarchy support and whine if cgroups are nested for them · Michal Hocko <hidden>
On 2012/9/13 0:34, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:37:28PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:quoted
"If a cpuset is cpu or mem exclusive, no other cpuset, other than a direct ancestor or descendant, may share any of the same CPUs or Memory Nodes." So I think it tricked me as well. I was under the impression that "exclusive" would also disallow the kids.You two are confusing me even more. AFAICS, the hierarchical properties don't seem to change whether exclusive is set or not. It still ensures children can't have something parent doesn't allow and exclusive applies to whether to share something with siblings, so I don't think anything is broken hierarchy-wise. Am I missing something? If so, please be explicit and elaborate where and how it's broken.
Ignore it. I misunderstood the exclusive flag. Sorry for the noise.