From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: cgroup NAKs ignored? Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 18:13:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20160312171318.GD1108@gmail.com> References: <1457710888-31182-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1457764019.10402.72.camel@gmail.com> <1457802262.3628.129.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 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-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/CWEwFK5WiF/FNnbQNvjecJoPE25K2H7oDD/Lqdeus0=; b=u0OW7d4iiz3R0D0SDMpvTPr8Tjo6Qh/aRCm9GyRhss6q/JDP+/lD1AlaoCofDYUL5L pIHWTZW4EuMKwc+scFEE/0POyCrMWDWVkIAg2OK9UMFE/s3goN7uEn9nZV5Jp1HL4keb gKL0YHuEi+9WrU16dfeal8g8TmehOWO0T6GG6xnJMoTLMlJULYoq7Bm41tJDlygFtyG0 bKr2J0Tsy0yYvYbVw59IVlTS6JBcJYGomjq21A+Fgp1dYjvooij05vo/gEvt+1dhBIxM 0zXrEtCKi8VB7NJGp3GqJPDmvtsKC2Zy9epTU7tsoNdxR3I9CpU7Xp6/huuQ9uCF9q8U 7WZQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1457802262.3628.129.camel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Tejun Heo , torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, a.p.zijlstra-/NLkJaSkS4VmR6Xm/wNWPw@public.gmane.org, mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org, pjt-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org, Thomas Gleixner * Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2016-03-12 at 07:26 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 10:41 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for > > > in-process hierarchical resource control and implements PRIO_RGRP for > > > setpriority(2) on top to allow in-process hierarchical CPU cycle > > > control in a seamless way. > > > > > > cgroup v1 allowed putting threads of a process in different cgroups > > > which enabled ad-hoc in-process resource control of some resources. > > BTW, within the scheduler, "process" does not exist. [...] Yes, and that's very fundamental. And I see that many bits of the broken 'v2' cgroups ABI already snuck into the upstream kernel in this merge dinwo, without this detail having been agreed upon! :-( Tejun, this _REALLY_ sucks. We had pending NAKs over the design, still you moved ahead like nothing happened, why?! > [...] A high level composite entity is what we currently aggregate from > arbitrary individual entities, a.k.a threads. Whether an individual entity be > an un-threaded "process" bash, a thread of "process" oracle, or one of > "process!?!" kernel is irrelevant. What entity aggregation has to do with > "process" eludes me completely. > > What's ad-hoc or unusual about a thread pool servicing an arbitrary number of > customers using cgroup bean accounting? Job arrives from customer, worker is > dispatched to customer workshop (cgroup), it does whatever on behest of > customer, sends bean count off to the billing department, and returns to the > break room. What's so annoying about using bean counters for.. counting beans > that you want to forbid it? Agreed ... and many others expressed this concern as well. Why were these concerns ignored? Thanks, Ingo