On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 11:21:25AM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Michal Koutný (5):
> cgroup/pids: Separate semantics of pids.events related to pids.max
> cgroup/pids: Make event counters hierarchical
> cgroup/pids: Add pids.events.local
> selftests: cgroup: Lexicographic order in Makefile
Hello,
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 10:31:13AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> I am exploring options and leaning towards reverting the patch
>
> daef47b89efd ("selftests: Compile kselftest headers with -D_GNU_SOURCE")
>
> Your amending the PR helps me if I have to send revert. I am sorry
> for the
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 09:50:06AM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 5/13/24 11:02, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:06:25AM +, Edward Liaw wrote:
> > > _GNU_SOURCE is provided by lib.mk, so it should be dropped to prevent
> > > redefinition warnin
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:06:25AM +, Edward Liaw wrote:
> _GNU_SOURCE is provided by lib.mk, so it should be dropped to prevent
> redefinition warnings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Edward Liaw
Applied to cgroup/for-6.10.
Thanks.
--
tejun
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 08:51:01PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a bunch of fixes as part of my work to make selftests build cleanly
> with clang.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> thanks,
> John Hubbard
>
>
> John Hubbard (4):
> selftests/cgroup: fix clang build failures for abs() calls
>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:20:08PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> This makes pids.events:max affine to pids.max limit.
>
> How are the new events supposed to be useful?
>
> - pids.events.local:max
> - tells that cgroup's limit is hit (too tight?)
> - pids.events:*
> - "only" directs top-down
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:20:12PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> struct cgroup_subsys pids_cgrp_subsys = {
> .css_alloc = pids_css_alloc,
> .css_free = pids_css_free,
> @@ -416,5 +469,6 @@ struct cgroup_subsys pids_cgrp_subsys = {
> .cancel_fork= pids_cancel_fork,
Hello,
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:20:10PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> index 17e6e9565156..108b03dfb26a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> +++
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 04:20:09PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Atomic counters are in kzalloc'd struct. They are zeroed already and
> atomic64_t does not need special initialization
> (cf kernel/trace/trace_clock.c:trace_counter).
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Koutný
Applied to cgroup/for-6.10.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 04:23:24PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 07:55:38AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > The whole series make sense to me.
>
> Including the migration charging?
> (Asking whether I should keep it stacked in v4 posting.)
Oh, let's sepa
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 07:05:41PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote:
> Currently, when pids.max limit is breached in the hierarchy, the event
> is counted and reported in the cgroup where the forking task resides.
>
> This decouples the limit and the notification caused by the limit making
> it
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 09:47:47AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> v2:
> - Found that rebuild_sched_domains() has external callers, revert its
> change and introduce rebuild_sched_domains_cpuslocked() instead.
>
> As discussed in the LKML thread [1], the asynchronous nature of cpuset
> hotplug
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:44:37AM +0800, Tianchen Ding wrote:
> The test case test_cgcore_lesser_ns_open only tasks effect when cgroup2
> is mounted with "nsdelegate" mount option. If it misses this option, or
> is remounted without "nsdelegate", the test case will fail. For example,
> running
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 02:22:28PM +0100, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> It would be easy at least for me if I just start with cgroupv2 and
> ensure that it has same available filenames as if we go through kernfs.
> Not a root cgroup node and maybe only freeze and kill for now that are
> part of
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 02:28:51PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > So filename will be one of cgroup_base_files[].name ?
> > > We probably don't want psi or cgroup1_base_files in there.
> >
> > Would it matter?
>
> Few weak reasons:
> . cgroup_psi_files have show/write/poll/release
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 01:45:56PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:02 PM Tejun Heo wrote:
> >
> > There's also cgroup.kill which would be useful for similar use cases. We can
> > add interface for both but idk. Let's say w
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:46:03PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> To use kernel_file_open() it would need path, inode, cred.
Yeah, it's more involved and potentially more controversial. That said, just
to push the argument a bit further, at least for path, it'd be nice to have
a
Hello, Alexei.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 10:32:24AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > It bothers me a bit that it's adding a dedicated interface for something
> > which already has a defined userspace interface. Would it be better to have
> > kfunc wrappers for kernel_read() and kernel_write()?
Hello, Djalal.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:53:22PM +0100, Djalal Harouni wrote:
> This patch series adds support to freeze the task cgroup hierarchy
> that is on a default cgroup v2 without going through kernfs interface.
>
> For some cases we want to freeze the cgroup of a task based on some
>
, and cgroup_tryget to safely acquire a reference to it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jose Fernandez
> Reviewed-by: Tycho Andersen
> Acked-by: Yonghong Song
> Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev
Acked-by: Tejun Heo
but some questions below
> +__bpf_kfunc struct cgroup *bpf_task_ge
Hello,
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:35:03AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> The first 2 patches are adopted from Federic with minor twists to fix
> merge conflicts and compilation issue. The rests are for implementing
> the new cpuset.cpus.isolation_full interface which is essentially a flag
> to
Hello,
On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 02:51:05PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> The root-only cpuset.cpus.isolated control file shows the current set
> of isolated CPUs in isolated partitions. This control file is currently
> exposed only with the cgroup_debug boot command line option which also
> adds the
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 10:34:00PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> v4:
> - Update patch 1 to move apply_wqattrs_lock() and apply_wqattrs_unlock()
>down into CONFIG_SYSFS block to avoid compilation warnings.
I already applied v3 to cgroup/for-6.8. Can you please send the fix up patch
against that
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 02:25:51PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> v2:
> - Add 2 read-only workqueue sysfs files to expose the user requested
>cpumask as well as the isolated CPUs to be excluded from
>wq_unbound_cpumask.
> - Ensure that caller of the new workqueue_unbound_exclude_cpumask()
>
On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 11:40:34PM +0530, Atul Kumar Pant wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Atul Kumar Pant
Applied to cgroup/for-6.8.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 03:18:52PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> I have a second thought after taking a further look at that. First of all,
> cpuset_allowed_mask isn't relevant here and the mask can certainly contain
> offline CPUs. So cpu_possible_mask is the proper fallback.
>
> With the
Hello, Waiman.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 02:24:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> If you mean saving the exclusion cpumask no matter who the caller is, we can
> add another exclusion cpumask to save it and expose it to sysfs. This should
> be done in the first workqueue patch, not as part of this
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 09:30:04AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/18/23 05:26, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 02:11:21PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > ...
> > > @@ -3875,6 +3931,13 @@ static struct cftype dfl_files[] = {
> > >
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 02:11:21PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
...
> @@ -3875,6 +3931,13 @@ static struct cftype dfl_files[] = {
> .flags = CFTYPE_ONLY_ON_ROOT | CFTYPE_DEBUG,
> },
>
> + {
> + .name = "cpus.isolated",
> + .seq_show =
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 02:11:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> When the "isolcpus" boot command line option is used to add a set
> of isolated CPUs, those CPUs will be excluded automatically from
> wq_unbound_cpumask to avoid running work functions from unbound
> workqueues.
>
> Recently
On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 10:44:20AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> When a local partition becomes invalid, it won't transition back to
> valid partition automatically if a proper "cpuset.cpus.exclusive" or
> "cpuset.cpus" change is made. Instead, system administrators have to
> explicitly echo "root"
31 matches
Mail list logo
