From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.11 1/3] cgroup: mark "tasks" cgroup file as insane Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 14:32:34 +0400 Message-ID: <51B1B6C2.7000304@parallels.com> References: <20130604021302.GH29989@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130604111556.GA4963@redhat.com> <20130604201947.GE14916@htj.dyndns.org> <20130606092055.GF30217@redhat.com> <20130606211410.GF5045@htj.dyndns.org> <20130607101220.GE10742@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130607101220.GE10742-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: Tejun Heo , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, kay.sievers-tD+1rO4QERM@public.gmane.org, Michal Hocko , lennart-mdGvqq1h2p+GdvJs77BJ7Q@public.gmane.org, Johannes Weiner , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Vivek Goyal On 06/07/2013 02:12 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> The problem is that it doesn't make any sense to split threads of the >> same process for at least two major controllers and you end up with >> situation where you can't identify a resource to be belonging to a >> certain cgroup because such level of granularity is simply undefined. >> As I wrote before, we can special case certain controllers but I'm >> extremely reluctant. If you need it, please convince me. It seems quite valid for me to split priority threads in a process and give them a 80 % timeslice guarantee, while leaving only 20 % for low-prio threads (for instance). In general, I don't think that it would hurt to allow separation at thread level *for the leaves*, specifically at the cpu related controllers.