From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:02:18 -0700 Message-ID: <20120313160218.GC7349@google.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <20120312221050.GG23255@google.com> <20120313134922.GB29169@redhat.com> 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=+5X+8tnZTmwQZMQzUuxcwVG24r6hMuHYTqYNPoeeXm0=; b=vloplcahMUEYwHZKsFouITfShrFbzEvAAUU+e1Vbk6XrVtXgLBN9w3n+FKCvDu+TkM OFyRWLIppzsf18Mt2XTfTVXkd1LMRVMwyueKWYrDoTDctlmx0wCMlZIrzUBYdH3l7f/a OkqDH9E/yeEbN3GhuRuxQggRH+cYl+QbRFYpmfvCM5KPZElIInFscFVhqqwMkH2cCbZo ed4ufb1OpRvIp2h/GShjFnxKv0WH7Ae9ATqzI7QEyS0DG+a3iRF9kUVHqgU176S15riP ORR+JzJlW4tsR4Jbqh0uxGNC7LEyI+Ty9q+MpkhqcUNJayIR8Hmx4FJItLvi2X8ORQlt FZ6w== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313134922.GB29169-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Li Zefan , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Kay Sievers , Lennart Poettering , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Michal Schmidt , Peter Zijlstra Hello, On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:49:22AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > So everything will be under single hierarchy? How will we control that > what controllers are active on what cgroups? Or all controllers are going > to be active on all cgroups on that hierarchy. > > That would be bad for IO cgroups where a better way to use it to isolate > the trouble making workload and run rest in root or a common cgroup. Depending on active configs, I guess, or maybe we'll have active controllers mask which can also be used for single-level restriction for controllers which don't support full hierarchy. 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 S1756649Ab2CMQH1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:07:27 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:41043 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751684Ab2CMQHZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:07:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:02:18 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Vivek Goyal 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, Michal Schmidt , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies Message-ID: <20120313160218.GC7349@google.com> References: <20120221211938.GE12236@google.com> <20120312221050.GG23255@google.com> <20120313134922.GB29169@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120313134922.GB29169@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 Hello, On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:49:22AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > So everything will be under single hierarchy? How will we control that > what controllers are active on what cgroups? Or all controllers are going > to be active on all cgroups on that hierarchy. > > That would be bad for IO cgroups where a better way to use it to isolate > the trouble making workload and run rest in root or a common cgroup. Depending on active configs, I guess, or maybe we'll have active controllers mask which can also be used for single-level restriction for controllers which don't support full hierarchy. Thanks. -- tejun