From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-cgroup 1/6] cgroup: Relax the no internal process constraint Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:39:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20170621213905.GD14720@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1497452737-11125-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <1497452737-11125-2-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <20170621204050.GA14720@htj.duckdns.org> <0c752151-f4aa-cda0-ba36-77cdc7dc25c6@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=rR9rkN4WUhokwWZwOoaQEppL2XwIaDPl0+upfTO9j3M=; b=AZMPfEOJAFOHmz4XFAoo5GoPtxBQoJC4/RVfAGKjhKvKXpPbYvfwT/tBjCL4gs7eE8 DHZOXx+mNU2hHHIIu4wcsuFWZuC0eQnnMi9ICewirrL49VSrqZqpQNAPH8klXdGL+GrL GdsHTMcsR3OPJEChvJHF1l8aWlXwb1Q7Dxxx9Wfvi2g+jaJQtTAjZRSl1PUr3OuYc7iN 0jD/M4DMJNL4QrR5Ph6HZUZsk5dqimTVGp8QmN66drAKFbFsIktdcnHb9vN17t5DbO02 iyoo2zIeGzOISK7Ujf3km0qXZoWT7F01dv4NWEYHFHjnQU7TKw6+7hJOvDV7nPOjI4ki pnxQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0c752151-f4aa-cda0-ba36-77cdc7dc25c6-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: Waiman Long Cc: Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org, pjt-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, luto-kltTT9wpgjJwATOyAt5JVQ@public.gmane.org, efault-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org Hello, On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:37:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > What happens when we add domain handling to CPU so that it is both a > > domain and resource controller? Even if that somehow can be resolved, > > wouldn't that come with a rather surprising userland behavior changes? > > Also, I'm not sure what we're achieving by doing this. It doesn't > > really relax the restriction. It just turns it off implicitly when > > certain conditions are met, which doesn't really allow any real > > capabilities and at least to me the behaviors feel more subtle and > > complicated than before. > > I think CPU isn't a good example for that. Can you please elaborate? > Another alternative is to treat no internal process as a controller > attribute. Then we don't need to worry about this intricate question and > let the controllers decide if they will allow internal processes. Isn't that what "threaded" is? Thanks. -- tejun