On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:26:18AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> While adding cgroup2 interface for the cpu controller, 0d5936344f30
> ("sched: Implement interface for cgroup unified hierarchy") forgot to
> update input validation and left it to reject cpu.max config if any
> descendant has set a highe
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 05:49:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Well, they're upper limits, not strict allocations. The current
> > behavior implemented by cpu isn't either a strict allocation or upper
> > limits. It disallows a child from having a value higher than the
> > parent (al
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 06:56:39AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:21:56AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > afaiu the existing code does exactly the opposite, it forces the
> > descendants to configure less than the parent allows.
> >
> > You're taking out an error
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:21:56AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> afaiu the existing code does exactly the opposite, it forces the
> descendants to configure less than the parent allows.
>
> You're taking out an error condition and silently allowing descentant
> misconfiguration. How does
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:26:18AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> While adding cgroup2 interface for the cpu controller, 0d5936344f30
> ("sched: Implement interface for cgroup unified hierarchy") forgot to
> update input validation and left it to reject cpu.max config if any
> descendant has set a highe
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:26:18AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> While adding cgroup2 interface for the cpu controller, 0d5936344f30
> ("sched: Implement interface for cgroup unified hierarchy") forgot to
> update input validation and left it to reject cpu.max config if any
> descendant has set
6 matches
Mail list logo
