CC: Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
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
=============