On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:26:09AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:14:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > AFAICT this is not in fact what I suggested... :/
>
> Heh, sorry about misattributing that. I was mostly referring to the
> overall idea of marking each cgroup domain or threaded rather than
> subtree.
>
> > My proposal did not have that invalid state. It would simply refuse to
> > change the type from thread to domain in the case where the parent is
> > not a domain.
> >
> > Also, my proposal maintained the normal property inheritance rules. A
> > child cgroup's creation 'type' would be that of its parent and not
> > always be 'domain'.
>
> But aren't both of the above get weird when the parent can host both
> domain and threaded children?
>
> R
> /
> A(D)
>
> If you create another child B under R, it's naturally gonna be a
> domain. Let's say you turn that to threaded.
>
> R
> / \
> A(D) B(T)
>
> And now try to create another child C, should that be a domain or
> threaded?
Domain of course, as R must be a domain, and hence all its children
start out as such.
> If we only inherit from the second level on, which is in itself
> already confusing, that still leads to invalid configs for non-root
> thread roots.
I don't see how. I don't get the example Waiman gave, what is wrong
with:
R (D)
|
A (D)
/ \
C(D) B(T)
? Afaict that's a perfectly valid configuration.
