Attaching PID 0 to a cgroup
dhaval at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Tue Jul 1 14:54:48 PDT 2008
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 11:48:31PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Li Zefan wrote:
>> CC: Paul Jackson <pj at sgi.com>
>> Dhaval Giani wrote:
>>> [put in the wrong alias for containers list correcting it.]
>>> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:15:45PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>> Attaching PID 0 to a cgroup caused the current task to be attached to
>>>> the cgroup. Looking at the code,
>>>> I was wondering, why this was done. It seems to be unexpected behavior.
>>>> Wouldn't something like the following be a better response? (I've used
>>>> EINVAL, but I can change it to ESRCH if that is better.)
>> Why is it unexpected? it follows the behavior of cpuset, so this patch will
>> break backward compatibility of cpuset.
>> But it's better to document this.
>> Document the following cgroup usage:
>> # echo 0 > /dev/cgroup/tasks
>> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf at cn.fujitsu.com>
>> cgroups.txt | 4 ++++
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>> diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups.txt b/Documentation/cgroups.txt
>> index 824fc02..213f533 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/cgroups.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/cgroups.txt
>> @@ -390,6 +390,10 @@ If you have several tasks to attach, you have to do it one after another:
>> # /bin/echo PIDn > tasks
>> +You can attach the current task by echoing 0:
>> +# /bin/echo 0 > tasks
>> 3. Kernel API
> Wouldn't be more meaningful to specify the bash's builtin echo here
> even if it doesn't opportunely handle write() errors?
> Using /bin/echo would attach /bin/echo itself to the cgroup, that just
> exists, so it seems like a kind of noop, isn't it?
Yes, you are right. this example should use bash's builtin echo.
More information about the Containers