From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroup TODOs Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:49:50 -0700 Message-ID: <20120914194950.GQ17747@google.com> References: <20120913205827.GO7677@google.com> <20120914180754.GF6221@redhat.com> <20120914185324.GI17747@google.com> <20120914192840.GG6221@redhat.com> <20120914194439.GP17747@google.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=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=h8oMRvcVbolasMl00bGLxPPbL12IMWxPKSs7cs+2mt8=; b=IppiFwoogV0mrjotz/Abetb/+2l0BXqpCqz4a5Gk+WLbUSOrspvcSCFkOHYZ3LVueP 4TdJr8bTwraq7SLeMizD2xWXirmxO6QrQQtQt8dC46wwUViUsRZO/d5ESk7T0Wd1rZaQ r/9pv2yg097v2jhWg4ZCwg8ETQDZPzbad0dQVawNYMhxMjoUdjfIWphD6KGfcal3Q5IH 1HVET/9h/jdyGzJpA2e84zvqEy25Z1vDvZz7RObZsJCOLoAIX0QzbUVGOLwh6Xo8T8DW 83pBU/J6v3jWqdnSFWSbVA4jg/xXlkHTp3BRJq6PklEq9p9Bcg3lYmIfsu4r+iR5A9wI VynQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120914194439.GP17747-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+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: Neil Horman , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Serge Hallyn , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Michal Hocko , Paul Mackerras , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Johannes Weiner , Thomas Graf , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Paul Turner , Ingo Molnar On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:44:39PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > I think there currently is too much (broken) flexibility and intent to > remove it. That doesn't mean that removeing all flexibility is the > right direction. It inherently is a balancing act and I think the > proposed solution is a reasonable tradeoff. There's important > difference between causing full overhead by default for all users and > requiring some overhead when the use case at hand calls for the > functionality. That said, if someone can think of a better solution, I'm all ears. One thing that *has* to be maintained is that it should be able to tag a resource in such way that its associated controllers are identifiable regardless of which task is looking at it. 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 S932431Ab2INTt5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:49:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:46680 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932380Ab2INTtz (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:49:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:49:50 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Vivek Goyal Cc: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Zefan , Michal Hocko , Glauber Costa , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Turner , Johannes Weiner , Thomas Graf , Paul Mackerras , Ingo Molnar , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Neil Horman , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Serge Hallyn Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroup TODOs Message-ID: <20120914194950.GQ17747@google.com> References: <20120913205827.GO7677@google.com> <20120914180754.GF6221@redhat.com> <20120914185324.GI17747@google.com> <20120914192840.GG6221@redhat.com> <20120914194439.GP17747@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120914194439.GP17747@google.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 Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:44:39PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > I think there currently is too much (broken) flexibility and intent to > remove it. That doesn't mean that removeing all flexibility is the > right direction. It inherently is a balancing act and I think the > proposed solution is a reasonable tradeoff. There's important > difference between causing full overhead by default for all users and > requiring some overhead when the use case at hand calls for the > functionality. That said, if someone can think of a better solution, I'm all ears. One thing that *has* to be maintained is that it should be able to tag a resource in such way that its associated controllers are identifiable regardless of which task is looking at it. Thanks. -- tejun