Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752443AbeAJWOX (ORCPT + 1 other); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:14:23 -0500 Received: from mail-qk0-f180.google.com ([209.85.220.180]:43713 "EHLO mail-qk0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751550AbeAJWOV (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:14:21 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosMQaj0LDRIXkbLL4Ckh1nscwXAwCUW2pONGjrncpoHLJz/MCUy6K8zEgCpnL3xd5hZ/SQFgw== Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:14:18 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , linux-man , lkml , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Roman Gushchin Subject: Re: cgroups(7): documenting cgroups v2 delegation Message-ID: <20180110221418.GF3460072@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <1ce0a885-94fb-7480-7180-7b873c95b1bb@gmail.com> <20180108141450.GP3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <6c9fdaee-739f-164d-d04e-fb3a7319db90@gmail.com> <20180109210722.GS3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <672cd179-31be-e03a-f9ff-ce59b76e23e2@gmail.com> <20180110142640.GB3668920@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <655118da-6d58-8f02-7367-77c10a3c16ea@gmail.com> <20180110193907.GC3460072@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Hello, Michael. On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:01:11PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > >>>> Can you please confirm that it's only necessary to delegate this file > >>>> if we are delegating a threaded subtree? > >>> > >>> Replied on the other thread. The file isn't delegatable as far as I > >>> can tell. > >> > >> So, following on from the discussion in the other thread, my > >> question above still stands. > > > > Oh, I frankly haven't thought about delegating a threaded subtree. > > I'm still confused. cgroup-v2.txt documents the possibility. You > wrote that text. We just had a conversation in another thread about the > fact that cgroup.threads is delegatable. You must have thought at > least a little about this? Oh, I'm probably mixing up two things. 1. When delegating, cgroup.threads should be delegated. Doing that selectively doesn't achieve anything meaningful. 2. I haven't thought much about delegating a sub-protion of a threaded subtree. Everything works the same way. I just can't think of a use case. Thanks. -- tejun