From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:15:49 -0300 Message-ID: <4F863AD5.3010505@parallels.com> References: <20120411185715.GA4317@somewhere.redhat.com> <20120412010745.GE1787@cmpxchg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120412010745.GE1787-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Johannes Weiner Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" , Frederic Weisbecker , Containers , Daniel Walsh , Hugh Dickins , LKML , Tejun Heo , Cgroups , Andrew Morton On 04/11/2012 10:07 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > You could also twist this around and argue the same for cpu usage and > make it part of the cpu cgroup, but it doesn't really fit in either > subsystem, IMO. I myself really prefer this in the cpu controller. Besides the bytes vs objects things, Whenever you create a process, at some point it will end up in the runqueues to be scheduled. It is a natural point of accounting. Either that, or making it a core feature of cgroups, like limiting the number of processes in the tasks file (just have to find a natural way to make it hierarchical). It will make more and more sense as people seem to be favoring single hierarchies these days. (granted, not a settled discussion, so your views may vary)