Hi,
I decided to see what cgroups is all about, and followed the instructions
in Documentation/cgroups.txt :-) It happened when I did this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/cgroup/Vegard 0]
# echo 1 cpuset.cpus
I can also provide the kernel config if necessary.
Vegard
[Vegard Nossum - Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 07:38:59PM +0200]
| Hi,
|
| I decided to see what cgroups is all about, and followed the instructions
| in Documentation/cgroups.txt :-) It happened when I did this:
|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/cgroup/Vegard 0]
| # echo 1 cpuset.cpus
|
| I can also
Hi,
Where do I get the latest kernel sources to test out the latest on the
containers?
Thanks
Mukesh
___
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
[KOSAKI Motohiro - Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:34:04AM +0900]
| CC'ed Paul Jackson
|
| it seems typical ABBA deadlock.
| I think cpuset use cgrou_lock() by mistake.
|
| IMHO, cpuset_handle_cpuhp() sholdn't use cgroup_lock() and
| shouldn't call rebuild_sched_domains().
|
|
| - #1
Forget my question I found the answer...
Thanks
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Mukesh G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another dumb question...
Should I apply the patch against vanilla 2.6.26 kernel or apply it to the
mm branch?
Thanks in advance
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:56 AM,
[Vegard Nossum - Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:42:50AM +0200]
| On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| [Vegard Nossum - Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 07:38:59PM +0200]
| | ===
| | [ INFO: possible circular locking
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Vegard Nossum - Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 07:38:59PM +0200]
| ===
| [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
| 2.6.26-rc7 #25
|
Another dumb question...
Should I apply the patch against vanilla 2.6.26 kernel or apply it to the mm
branch?
Thanks in advance
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Mukesh G ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Hi,
Where do I get the latest kernel
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
I think it would be great if sysfs_chmod_file can do all-or-nothing
instead of failing half way through but given the interface of
notify_change(), it could be difficult to implement. Any ideas?
Is it acceptable to queue
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 20:46 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Andrea Righi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Subrata Modak wrote:
Dear Andrea,
We have been tracking Controllers developement for
quite
PATCH [01/06]
Today, 'current' has an exclusive access to its sem_undo_list (anchored at
current-sysvsem.undo_list):
. it is created during a semop() if the SEMUNDO flag is specified for one
of the semaphores.
. it can also be created during a copy_process() operation if the
PATCH [05/06]
This patch introduces the .show seq operation for /proc/pid/semundo.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Peiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Nadia Derbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
ipc/sem.c | 28
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
Index:
PATCH [03/06]
This patch introduces the .start and .stop seq operations for
/proc/pid/semundo.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Peiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Nadia Derbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
ipc/sem.c | 43 +--
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 2
PATCH [02/06]
This patch adds a new procfs interface to display the per-process semundo
data.
A new per-PID file is added, called semundo.
It contains one line per semaphore IPC where there is something to undo for
this process.
Then, each line contains the semid followed by each undo value
PATCH [06/06]
This patch introduces the .write seq operation for /proc/pid/semundo.
In order to simplify the locking strategy, the write operation is only allowed
to 'current'.
Signed-off-by: Nadia Derbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/proc/base.c |2
ipc/sem.c | 250
This patchset is a part of an effort to make sysv ipc objects
read/writable from userspace for checkpoint / restart.
System V ipc's are objects that are global to a system and can thus be
checkpointed and restarted on a container basis. But some parts of the ipc
structures are process related
PATCH [04/06]
This patch introduces the .next seq operation for /proc/pid/semundo.
What should be mentioned here is that the undo_list lock is released between
between each iteration.
Doing this, we only guarantee to access some valid data during the .show,
not to have a full coherent view of
Quoting Tejun Heo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Benjamin Thery wrote:
Mark the /sys/kernel/uids directory to be tagged so that processes in
different user namespaces can remount /sys and see their own uid
listings.
Without this patch, having CONFIG_FAIR_SCHED=y makes user namespaces
unusable,
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
PATCH [01/06]
Today, 'current' has an exclusive access to its sem_undo_list (anchored at
current-sysvsem.undo_list):
. it is created during a semop() if the SEMUNDO flag is specified for one
of the semaphores.
. it can also be created
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
PATCH [02/06]
This patch adds a new procfs interface to display the per-process semundo
data.
A new per-PID file is added, called semundo.
It contains one line per semaphore IPC where there is something to undo for
this process.
Then, each
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
PATCH [03/06]
This patch introduces the .start and .stop seq operations for
/proc/pid/semundo.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Peiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Nadia Derbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Serge Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Except the sysfs mount holds no refcount on the userns. So as long as we
do the ida tagging as you suggested in your response to patch 6, there
should be no reference to the user_ns left in sysfs code.
The extra reference in patch #9 is for a light
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:05:34 +0200
Andrea Righi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the core io-throttle kernel infrastructure. It creates the basic
interfaces to cgroups and implements the I/O measurement and throttling
functions.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:05:35 +0200
Andrea Righi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apply the io-throttle controller to the opportune kernel functions. Both
accounting and throttling functionalities are performed by
cgroup_io_throttle().
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Hi, Tsuruta.
In addition, I got the following message during test #2. Program
ioload, our benchmark program, was blocked more than 120 seconds.
Do you see any problems?
No.
I tried to test in environment which runs from 1 to 200 processes
per group.
However, such message was not output.
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
PATCH [04/06]
This patch introduces the .next seq operation for /proc/pid/semundo.
What should be mentioned here is that the undo_list lock is released between
between each iteration.
Doing this, we only guarantee to access
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
PATCH [06/06]
This patch introduces the .write seq operation for /proc/pid/semundo.
In order to simplify the locking strategy, the write operation is only allowed
to 'current'.
There should also be a patch against
27 matches
Mail list logo
