From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [Workman-devel] cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:02:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20130408200232.GM3021@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20130406012159.GA17159@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130408175925.GE28292@redhat.com> <20130408181607.GI3021@htj.dyndns.org> <20130408191105.GG28292@redhat.com> <20130408192024.GL3021@htj.dyndns.org> <20130408194630.GH28292@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=8CvJVFvDjTYSMiPM1gSV1PogiNj7HfmpizQrns7fxXE=; b=f9EIoynjpmOaigRuHDCpMaDULt/at8k0OJ8SDvW19pl+zMUaAtdUtD8BrXuMs5sa5a V/FGQGDper/Cc8WlwCWb2Ry1ZeNDX2d0P+2sZ8L+1SvWNHc64wpvconMAVpRnhjwpZtr 5pnyGuL7kzgdF/ulNJ9zEfA1vUYVwP/fCvncKHKjBjRyp4WiyyQTJopbICsSJXi5Zrx0 5aIQme7YLRkQmkzTjzV2aZA3hCWvMMhoD/aoErdU8FDXjfAfoAtFUC1kB++Pd/UIIUDZ kpO92FhHwCKhqL7E/ic1e2+/aP7dAIpEUtlTYfQpvMglgFRP80LidO0k8rgHqblNZYGH nNSg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130408194630.GH28292-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, bsingharora-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Kay Sievers , lpoetter-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dhaval.giani-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, workman-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 03:46:31PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > It would be good to think more about it. How a user can ensure minimum > resources to a partition/service. Because in that case at every level > somebody needs to keep track how much of resources have been committed > as minimum requirements and more consumers can't be allowed at same level. > (This sounds like cpu RT time division among various cgroups). Yes, please take a step back from what we have right now because it isn't very good. It's a general policy decision / enforcement problem and even the policies may change dynamically. Having a central authority doesn't automatically solve any of that and it'd be most likely as limited as existing solutions at the beginning but it allows for future improvements unlike scattering the solution all over the place which just digs the hole deeper. Thanks. -- tejun