From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:04:16 -0700 Message-ID: <20120312230416.GM23255@google.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <20120312221050.GG23255@google.com> <1331590938.18960.57.camel@twins> <20120312222817.GI23255@google.com> <1331591568.18960.61.camel@twins> <20120312223944.GJ23255@google.com> <1331592241.18960.64.camel@twins> 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=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=n/jAEkjYiuHLwu9OsgY5+xdbh+SjEN2lluMmAdtyKk4=; b=y/9esYW7GA/9znrQdz/Vn/RWdflq3sG6f3szMfyzIRTrM0eqAnFNw/i1tJyYEYKW/C 9D4JeT9Fa+jvLzsS8KEPhjV68bG3jRXjZ9FEw5vLwaNEIrWhBjGwrCN33IWPwj1vKdaB yNkt7h2qc82OSuG8FWWe18G7dCuE6JKw3BWwfdbsbKW1m44HTGXWmB8SaqBo1lyf+gXd /6zRWPIGi8KSUGsMw09UC6vEB4sSdWRwbLNbZ6n5jl5aFa4bIRvLv2VMdesXxjBAywVS Ktk0Pnq7AkTAW6pyAaP+pDz/FEx7d0hwCDk0LBCHxfx5aWP1LtdQ4DirlBRryDsm3svQ GRng== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1331592241.18960.64.camel@twins> 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: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Michal Schmidt , Frederic Weisbecker , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Kay Sievers , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Lennart Poettering , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Vivek Goyal On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:44:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 15:39 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > If we can get to the point where nesting is fully > > supported by every controller first, that would be awesome too. > > As long as that is the goal.. otherwise, I'd be overjoyed if I can rip > nesting support out of the cpu-controller.. that stuff is such a pain. > Then again, I don't think the container people like this proposal -- > they were the ones pushing for full hierarchy back when. Yeah, the great pain of full hierarchy support is one of the reasons why I keep thinking about supporting mapping to flat hierarchy. Full hierarchy could be too painful and not useful enough for some controllers. Then again, cpu and memcg already have it and according to Vivek blkcg also had a proposed implementation, so maybe it's okay. Let's see. 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 S1757996Ab2CLXEX (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:04:23 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:54792 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757401Ab2CLXEW (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:04:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:04:16 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Li Zefan , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Kay Sievers , Lennart Poettering , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vivek Goyal , Michal Schmidt Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Message-ID: <20120312230416.GM23255@google.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <20120312221050.GG23255@google.com> <1331590938.18960.57.camel@twins> <20120312222817.GI23255@google.com> <1331591568.18960.61.camel@twins> <20120312223944.GJ23255@google.com> <1331592241.18960.64.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1331592241.18960.64.camel@twins> 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 Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:44:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 15:39 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > If we can get to the point where nesting is fully > > supported by every controller first, that would be awesome too. > > As long as that is the goal.. otherwise, I'd be overjoyed if I can rip > nesting support out of the cpu-controller.. that stuff is such a pain. > Then again, I don't think the container people like this proposal -- > they were the ones pushing for full hierarchy back when. Yeah, the great pain of full hierarchy support is one of the reasons why I keep thinking about supporting mapping to flat hierarchy. Full hierarchy could be too painful and not useful enough for some controllers. Then again, cpu and memcg already have it and according to Vivek blkcg also had a proposed implementation, so maybe it's okay. Let's see. Thanks. -- tejun