From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 cgroup/for-3.16] cgroup: add documentation about unified hierarchy Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:14:26 -0400 Message-ID: <20140422211426.GD3615@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <20140414220917.GD1863@htj.dyndns.org> <20140416145248.GD1257@htj.dyndns.org> <20140422162707.GR29311@dhcp22.suse.cz> 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=6S5VDRqEc2+iz+fl2BHUI2i7CgO2q/xA/y2BYy4rZTg=; b=BG7yGODANaApINbtacNAlH+rmuuLGqGx3/ESEPrE57XmnsEyWSu9ViplpRxtiNYkQ8 9Q4Yt67Fem83BVdI8Olc/5BV+pho+KgMk/Dts5mEFNTprJTLa4qhYdfla5oMBbRZl4bT U5JLLM1MaRtcaLXDCdb746AIPrV92zYFI9QTmOyRIBqqZ/TRRvNe0C+ScVJ14IQA4ieT imia6M7UVXBSRVCrBYlxOT+YpThjG4DMVVYFoHTONnUX4wP64o5ilG8ZvnPlpmIP9nkF ejP+EmNAyjiOoHjeINlANl0TRRIxcpLnTT4WgEe+s0Ghd/2mwfYAvNJTbrXldqqh3TOb snmg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140422162707.GR29311-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@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: Michal Hocko Cc: Brandon Philips , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Serge Hallyn , Kay Sievers , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Daniel Borkmann , Lennart Poettering , Johannes Weiner , Thomas Graf , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org Hello, Hope you enjoyed the vacation. :) On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 06:27:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 16-04-14 10:52:48, Tejun Heo wrote: > [....] > > +The memory controller currently doesn't have a way to control what > > +happens between internal tasks and child cgroups and the behavior is > > +not clearly defined. > > I am not sure I understand this. Could you be more specific what exactly > is not clearly defined? Oh, the fact that there are no control knobs for the internal tasks, so when there's contention involving both internal tasks and child cgroups, how resources are distributed is implementation specific without clearly defined rules. Thanks. -- tejun