From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:34:57 -0800 Message-ID: <20120223223457.GJ22536@google.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <20120222163858.GB4128@redhat.com> <20120222165714.GC4128@redhat.com> <1329990094.24994.64.camel@twins> <20120223213847.GK19691@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=e0/P0VvuPFPsOxKiMAz9kQwCOsqUjTJtm8++2Q4gNPA=; b=UX7IM0lGTBWut+gVjSFMUW0rhuZk7V/RG2e3DVFpWKVdUO5MlWYHlJEL3x+Z1J/Xdu g18WkbL2RkNP7vTRQ/TXm54JpGDGQmU4HzzMwTbaWeXm9nQZdiGh+BYla2/EIXh8Mx1q B9BzDVgp/wAl4NcJMwTQZlUK66DcGcQxg6i3k= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120223213847.GK19691-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Kay Sievers , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Christoph Hellwig , Lennart Poettering , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:38:47PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:41:34AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 11:57 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > > > Again, it does not mean I am advocating flat hiearchy. I am just wondering > > > in case of fully nested hierarchies (task at same level as groups), how > > > does one explain it to a layman user who understands things in terms of > > > % of resources. > > > > If your complete control is % based then I would assume its a % of a %. > > Simple enough. > > But % of % will vary dynamically and not be static. So if root has got > 100% of resources and we want 25% of that for a group, then hierarchy > might look as follows. It is complex but semantics is pretty well defined. It should behave exactly the same as HTB. Whether the complexity would be justifiable is a different issue. Thanks. -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757194Ab2BWWfq (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:35:46 -0500 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:63321 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756405Ab2BWWfo (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:35:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:34:57 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Li Zefan , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Kay Sievers , Lennart Poettering , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Message-ID: <20120223223457.GJ22536@google.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <20120222163858.GB4128@redhat.com> <20120222165714.GC4128@redhat.com> <1329990094.24994.64.camel@twins> <20120223213847.GK19691@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120223213847.GK19691@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:38:47PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:41:34AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 11:57 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > > > Again, it does not mean I am advocating flat hiearchy. I am just wondering > > > in case of fully nested hierarchies (task at same level as groups), how > > > does one explain it to a layman user who understands things in terms of > > > % of resources. > > > > If your complete control is % based then I would assume its a % of a %. > > Simple enough. > > But % of % will vary dynamically and not be static. So if root has got > 100% of resources and we want 25% of that for a group, then hierarchy > might look as follows. It is complex but semantics is pretty well defined. It should behave exactly the same as HTB. Whether the complexity would be justifiable is a different issue. Thanks. -- tejun