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 16:09:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20120312230949.GN23255@google.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <20120312221050.GG23255@google.com> <1331590938.18960.57.camel@twins> <20120312222817.GI23255@google.com> <20120312223113.GB18359@tango.0pointer.de> <20120312230020.GL23255@google.com> <1331593367.18960.66.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 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=mAUnXriq5tXCo+abYFOZVVPHxEi9bwtKNjP5QBMjDm0=; b=OZ+Q3NqaGU+kMzUAn0o9NK6tifnew4ypLo2KXtqD0bF1nZg/SV2hyiIFD8Fwlpk5Ls 14rUyhGHC3i5YBpkRTLYsknGurdYC5eZOgFMSCJnixRd9h1UG2rmilM3khLBf+TPoYPO hD3D5aHxrE/MN9wUQeGExWU+vusnrU4tyMNXNNpaUJrAQ8tW6BaTsj/i6JNN3gMHe+CV rohCdtMGFFFmlMeSZpsH95Brc9mQQhoxiZ81CPiOzhsn9PsaaMFeJGXatYy03BSBrW1b OQRGhfa+8ZTWmRcwuU2Q1KgtIv2Oj/NxDKd86GYIy75I/zkTsuSf/OTx3ZwNM4kTxKgh qyWA== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1331593367.18960.66.camel@twins> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Lennart Poettering , Li Zefan , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Kay Sievers , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Vivek Goyal , Michal Schmidt Hello, Peter. On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:02:47AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 16:00 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > Ooh, both will be available to choose from. I was trying to explain > > that there can be configuration only at one layer for any task so that > > it can be mapped to flat hierarchy. Where to apply the config will be > > selected by the user (or system tool). > > Thus in effect this is a false choice, since Lennart and assorted idiots > conspire against sanity by pushing systemd into our every orifice, and > since he just said systemd requires one of the two, the choice will be > made for us, lest we forfeit wanting to boot our system. I think it should be fine as long as systemd or whatever system cgroup manager can be told to stay aside about limits. Everyone doing their own thing and ending up competing directly under /sys/fs/cgroup/ worries me more. cgroup config fs doesn't have enough flexibility or proper provisions for sharing while encouraging direct usage. That's not a good combination. 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 S1758068Ab2CLXJ6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:09:58 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:43365 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752942Ab2CLXJ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:09:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:09:49 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Lennart Poettering , Li Zefan , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Kay Sievers , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vivek Goyal , Michal Schmidt Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Message-ID: <20120312230949.GN23255@google.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <20120312221050.GG23255@google.com> <1331590938.18960.57.camel@twins> <20120312222817.GI23255@google.com> <20120312223113.GB18359@tango.0pointer.de> <20120312230020.GL23255@google.com> <1331593367.18960.66.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1331593367.18960.66.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 Hello, Peter. On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:02:47AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 16:00 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > Ooh, both will be available to choose from. I was trying to explain > > that there can be configuration only at one layer for any task so that > > it can be mapped to flat hierarchy. Where to apply the config will be > > selected by the user (or system tool). > > Thus in effect this is a false choice, since Lennart and assorted idiots > conspire against sanity by pushing systemd into our every orifice, and > since he just said systemd requires one of the two, the choice will be > made for us, lest we forfeit wanting to boot our system. I think it should be fine as long as systemd or whatever system cgroup manager can be told to stay aside about limits. Everyone doing their own thing and ending up competing directly under /sys/fs/cgroup/ worries me more. cgroup config fs doesn't have enough flexibility or proper provisions for sharing while encouraging direct usage. That's not a good combination. Thanks. -- tejun