--- Comment From shg...@cn.ibm.com 2016-06-17 06:01 EDT---
(In reply to comment #63)
>
> @Sqxm - thanks for that input.
>
> For what it's worth you should be able to use ppa:serge-hallyn/systemd in
> xenial to get cpusets not created by default. Unfortunately I need to make
> some more cha
--- Comment From shg...@cn.ibm.com 2016-06-18 09:49 EDT---
(In reply to comment #77)
> "LXC cases, like docker and KVM" - did you mean non-lxc cases?
>
> xenial by default should now be using libpam-cgfs, should not be using
> cgmanager, and should not be creating cpusets.
Thanks for the i
sudo cat /proc//mountinfo
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392176
Title:
mounts cgroups unconditionally which causes undesired effects with cpu
hotplug
Status in cgmana
--- Comment From bharata@in.ibm.com 2015-07-12 06:07 EDT---
*** Bug 127595 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392176
--- Comment From ru...@us.ibm.com 2016-07-18 15:08 EDT---
.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392176
Title:
mounts cgroups unconditionally which causes undesired ef
--- Comment From ara...@us.ibm.com 2015-04-07 15:56 EDT---
(In reply to comment #33)
> Yes Nish, take a look at the full example:
>
> root@ubuntu1504:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# cat cpuset.cpus ; cat
> user.slice/cpuset.cpus
> 0-7
> 0-7
> root@ubuntu1504:/sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset# echo 0 >
> /sys/de
--- Comment From mainam...@in.ibm.com 2015-04-09 09:58 EDT---
*** Bug 121220 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Kernel
Packages, which is subscribed to linux in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392176
--- Comment From preeti.mur...@in.ibm.com 2015-04-09 02:55 EDT---
(In reply to comment #36)
> > But I'm a bit worried, doesn't not mounting cpuset mean that containers,
> > for instance, wouldn't work so well?
>
> You just won't be able to lock containers to cpusets.
>
> > That is, even if
--- Comment From preeti.mur...@in.ibm.com 2015-04-20 03:20 EDT---
Hi,
We want cgroups to be mounted *without* the cpuset controller.
>From your conversation I could make out the following:
1. LXC does not have a hard requirement on cpusets. But the challenge in not
mounting
cpusets woul
--- Comment From preeti.mur...@in.ibm.com 2015-06-16 04:50 EDT---
Hi,
An update on this:
We are looking at solving this issue in either of the following two
ways:
1. Have a config option where user specifies the controllers to mount.
2. Have the patch that mounts cgroups for containers i
> But I'm a bit worried, doesn't not mounting cpuset mean that containers,
> for instance, wouldn't work so well?
You just won't be able to lock containers to cpusets.
> That is, even if cgmanager doesn't mount the cpuset cgroup, if
> *anything* mounts it, processes in that cgroup tree will exper
Quoting bugproxy (bugpr...@us.ibm.com):
> --- Comment From preeti.mur...@in.ibm.com 2015-04-20 03:20 EDT---
> Hi,
>
> We want cgroups to be mounted *without* the cpuset controller.
>
> >From your conversation I could make out the following:
>
> 1. LXC does not have a hard requirement on
12 matches
Mail list logo
