Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Implement interface for cgroup unified hierarchy

[Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On 2015/08/19 5:31, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Paul.
>
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:03:30PM -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
>>> 2) Control within an address-space.  For subsystems with fungible resources,
>>> e.g. CPU, it can be useful for an address space to partition its own
>>> threads.  Losing the capability to do this against the CPU controller would
>>> be a large set-back for instance.  Occasionally, it is useful to share these
>>> groupings between address spaces when processes are cooperative, but this is
>>> less of a requirement.
>>>
>>> This is important to us.
>
> Sure, let's build a proper interface for that.  Do you actually need
> sub-hierarchy inside a process?  Can you describe your use case in
> detail and why having hierarchical CPU cycle distribution is essential
> for your use case?

An actual per-thread use case in our customers is qemu-kvm + cpuset.
customers pin each vcpus and qemu-kvm's worker threads to cpus.
For example, pinning 4 vcpus to cpu 2-6 and pinning qemu main thread and
others(vhost) to cpu 0-1.

This is an actual kvm tuning on our customers for performance guarantee.

In another case, cpu cgroup's throttling feature is used per vcpu for vm cpu sizing.

Thanks,
-Kame