From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can_attach() Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 07:10:47 +0200 Message-ID: <1430716247.3129.44.camel@gmail.com> References: <5546C34C.7050202@huawei.com> <1430709236.3129.42.camel@gmail.com> <5546F80B.3070802@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :content-type:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=txaSh1usDmhxnQsY2KbGpzX0fM4ZiGurq/R7vwwIKDY=; b=vz1Tok6JLxtVgywLEqb0k4a3WWT0J6csO+F1ps6PbaPfbbYOHduYHCfVwQkYgqtrrh Icc3+wihXmKsSDYed6QD5GUkFeO6Ohwp0BVofCXMD9gkvjP0t5n6UBoGBHilMIHkW2bh QL8nQ4SgV3puGyEeT4YjbHLX8jyqrXgaAYmIfXuXMgUK7g4CL4bTZUgKJAvRNd8hRXur z43dy1ntmYunGi6RQ7C1gjnLxod6w5R2BINGkME3cWgs4gAl3c/WrppCaPQgHuFTcZDa LLQJDnTanMrtO3LMB/y/NRAv1rdvBhBRo7/QOZ2WYs2DMIQyiLHzsUrxj7ZsyV4a0BOw F+Yg== In-Reply-To: <5546F80B.3070802-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Zefan Li Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , LKML , Cgroups On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 12:39 +0800, Zefan Li wrote: > >> We are moving toward unified hierarchy where all the cgroup controllers > >> are bound together, so it would make cgroups easier to use if we have less > >> restrictions on attaching tasks between cgroups. > > > > Forcing group scheduling overhead on users if they want cpuset or memory > > cgroup functionality would be far from wonderful. Am I interpreting the > > implications of this unification/binding properly? > > > > (I hope not, surely the plan is not to utterly _destroy_ cgroup utility) > > > > Some degree of flexibility is provided so that you may disable some controllers > in a subtree. For example: > > root ---> child1 > (cpuset,memory,cpu) (cpuset,memory) > \ > \-> child2 > (cpu) Whew, that's a relief. Thanks. -Mike From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751871AbbEDFK4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2015 01:10:56 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:36718 "EHLO mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750790AbbEDFKr (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2015 01:10:47 -0400 Message-ID: <1430716247.3129.44.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can_attach() From: Mike Galbraith To: Zefan Li Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , LKML , Cgroups Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 07:10:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5546F80B.3070802@huawei.com> References: <5546C34C.7050202@huawei.com> <1430709236.3129.42.camel@gmail.com> <5546F80B.3070802@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 12:39 +0800, Zefan Li wrote: > >> We are moving toward unified hierarchy where all the cgroup controllers > >> are bound together, so it would make cgroups easier to use if we have less > >> restrictions on attaching tasks between cgroups. > > > > Forcing group scheduling overhead on users if they want cpuset or memory > > cgroup functionality would be far from wonderful. Am I interpreting the > > implications of this unification/binding properly? > > > > (I hope not, surely the plan is not to utterly _destroy_ cgroup utility) > > > > Some degree of flexibility is provided so that you may disable some controllers > in a subtree. For example: > > root ---> child1 > (cpuset,memory,cpu) (cpuset,memory) > \ > \-> child2 > (cpu) Whew, that's a relief. Thanks. -Mike