From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
kernel-team@fb.com, pjt@google.com, luto@amacapital.net,
efault@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] cgroup: Implement new thread mode semantics
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 16:36:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cf47d637-204c-49ea-94ec-c2bf0cf10614@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170601211823.GC13390@htj.duckdns.org>
On 06/01/2017 05:18 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 05:12:42PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Are you referring to keeping the no internal process restriction and
>> document how to work around that instead? I would like to hear what
>> workarounds are currently being used.
> What we've been talking about all along - just creating explicit leaf
> nodes.
>
>> Anyway, you currently allow internal process in thread mode, but not in
>> non-thread mode. I would prefer no such restriction in both thread and
>> non-thread mode.
> Heh, so, these aren't arbitrary. The contraint is tied to
> implementing resource domains and thread subtree doesn't have resource
> domains in them, so they don't need the constraint. I'm sorry about
> the short replies but I'm kinda really tied up right now. I'm gonna
> do the thread mode so that it can be agnostic w.r.t. the internal
> process constraint and I think it could be helpful to decouple these
> discussions. We've been having this discussion for a couple years now
> and it looks like we're gonna go through it all over, which is fine,
> but let's at least keep that separate.
I wouldn't argue further on that if you insist. However, I still want to
relax the constraint somewhat by abandoning the no internal process
constraint when only threaded controllers (non-resource domains) are
enabled even when thread mode has not been explicitly enabled. It is a
modified version my second alternative. Now the question is which
controllers are considered to be resource domains. I think memory and
blkio are in the list. What else do you think should be considered
resource domains?
Cheers,
Longman
any of the resource domains (!threaded) controllers are enabled.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-02 20:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-15 13:33 [RFC PATCH v2 00/17] cgroup: Major changes to cgroup v2 core Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/17] cgroup: reorganize cgroup.procs / task write path Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/17] cgroup: add @flags to css_task_iter_start() and implement CSS_TASK_ITER_PROCS Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/17] cgroup: introduce cgroup->proc_cgrp and threaded css_set handling Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/17] cgroup: implement CSS_TASK_ITER_THREADED Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/17] cgroup: implement cgroup v2 thread support Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/17] cgroup: Fix reference counting bug in cgroup_procs_write() Waiman Long
2017-05-17 19:20 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/17] cgroup: Prevent kill_css() from being called more than once Waiman Long
2017-05-17 19:23 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-17 20:24 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-17 21:34 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/17] cgroup: Move debug cgroup to its own file Waiman Long
2017-05-17 21:36 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-18 15:29 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-18 15:52 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-19 19:21 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-19 19:33 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-19 20:28 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/17] cgroup: Keep accurate count of tasks in each css_set Waiman Long
2017-05-17 21:40 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-18 15:56 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/17] cgroup: Make debug cgroup support v2 and thread mode Waiman Long
2017-05-17 21:43 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-18 15:58 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] cgroup: Implement new thread mode semantics Waiman Long
2017-05-17 21:47 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-18 17:21 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-19 20:26 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-19 20:58 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-22 17:13 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-22 17:32 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-24 20:36 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-24 21:17 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-24 21:27 ` Tejun Heo
2017-06-01 14:50 ` Tejun Heo
2017-06-01 15:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-06-01 15:35 ` Tejun Heo
2017-06-01 18:44 ` Waiman Long
2017-06-01 18:47 ` Tejun Heo
2017-06-01 19:27 ` Waiman Long
2017-06-01 20:38 ` Tejun Heo
2017-06-01 20:48 ` Waiman Long
2017-06-01 20:52 ` Tejun Heo
2017-06-01 21:12 ` Waiman Long
2017-06-01 21:18 ` Tejun Heo
2017-06-02 20:36 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2017-06-03 10:33 ` Tejun Heo
2017-06-01 19:55 ` Waiman Long
2017-06-01 20:15 ` Waiman Long
2017-06-01 18:41 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/17] cgroup: Remove cgroup v2 no internal process constraint Waiman Long
2017-05-19 20:38 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-20 2:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-05-24 17:01 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-22 16:56 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-24 17:05 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-24 18:09 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-24 18:19 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/17] cgroup: Allow fine-grained controllers control in cgroup v2 Waiman Long
2017-05-19 20:55 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-19 21:20 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-24 17:31 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-24 17:49 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-24 17:56 ` Tejun Heo
2017-05-24 18:17 ` Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/17] cgroup: Enable printing of v2 controllers' cgroup hierarchy Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/17] sched: Misc preps for cgroup unified hierarchy interface Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/17] sched: Implement interface for cgroup unified hierarchy Waiman Long
2017-05-15 13:34 ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/17] sched: Make cpu/cpuacct threaded controllers Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=cf47d637-204c-49ea-94ec-c2bf0cf10614@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).