linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	serge.hallyn@canonical.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroup TODOs
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 18:33:15 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <505A725B.2080901@amacapital.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120913205827.GO7677@google.com>

[grr.  why does gmane scramble addresses?]

On 09/13/2012 01:58 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> 6. Multiple hierarchies
> 
>   Apart from the apparent wheeeeeeeeness of it (I think I talked about
>   that enough the last time[1]), there's a basic problem when more
>   than one controllers interact - it's impossible to define a resource
>   group when more than two controllers are involved because the
>   intersection of different controllers is only defined in terms of
>   tasks.
> 
>   IOW, if an entity X is of interest to two controllers, there's no
>   way to map X to the cgroups of the two controllers.  X may belong to
>   A and B when viewed by one task but A' and B when viewed by another.
>   This already is a head scratcher in writeback where blkcg and memcg
>   have to interact.
> 
>   While I am pushing for unified hierarchy, I think it's necessary to
>   have different levels of granularities depending on controllers
>   given that nesting involves significant overhead and noticeable
>   controller-dependent behavior changes.
> 
> 

> ...

>   I think this level of flexibility should be enough for most use
>   cases.  If someone disagrees, please voice your objections now.
> 

OK, I'll bite.

I have a server that has a whole bunch of cores.  A small fraction of
those cores are general purpose and run whatever they like.  The rest
are tightly controlled.

For simplicity, we have two cpusets that we use.  The root allows all
cpus.  The other one only allows the general purpose cpus.  We shove
everything into the general-purpose-only cpuset, and then we move
special stuff back to root.  (We also shove some kernel threads into a
non-root cpuset using the 'cset' tool.)

Enter systemd, which wants a hierarchy corresponding to services.  If we
were to use it, we might end up violating its hierarchy.

Alternatively, if we started using memcg, then we might have some tasks
to have more restrictive memory usage but less restrictive cpu usage.

As long as we can still pull this off, I'm happy.

--Andy

P.S.  I'm sure you can guess why based on my email address :)

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-09-20  1:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-13 20:58 [RFC] cgroup TODOs Tejun Heo
2012-09-14  9:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-09-14 17:17   ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14  9:10 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2012-09-14 13:58   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 19:29     ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 21:51       ` Kay Sievers
     [not found] ` <5052E7DF.7040000@parallels.com>
2012-09-14  9:12   ` Li Zefan
2012-09-14 11:22     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 17:59     ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 18:23       ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 18:33         ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 17:43   ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-17  8:50     ` Glauber Costa
2012-09-17 17:21       ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 11:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 12:54   ` Daniel P. Berrange
2012-09-14 17:53   ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 14:25 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 14:53   ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 15:14     ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 21:57       ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-17 15:27         ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-18 18:08         ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 21:39   ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-17 15:05     ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-17 16:40       ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 15:03 ` Michal Hocko
2012-09-19 14:02   ` Michal Hocko
2012-09-19 14:03     ` [PATCH 2.6.32] memcg: warn on deeper hierarchies with use_hierarchy==0 Michal Hocko
2012-09-19 19:38       ` David Rientjes
2012-09-20 13:24         ` Michal Hocko
2012-09-20 22:33           ` David Rientjes
2012-09-21  7:16             ` Michal Hocko
2012-09-19 14:03     ` [PATCH 3.0] " Michal Hocko
2012-09-19 14:05     ` [PATCH 3.2+] " Michal Hocko
2012-09-14 18:07 ` [RFC] cgroup TODOs Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 18:53   ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 19:28     ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 19:44       ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 19:49         ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 20:39           ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-17  8:40             ` Glauber Costa
2012-09-17 17:30               ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-17 14:37             ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 18:36 ` Aristeu Rozanski
2012-09-14 18:54   ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-15  2:20   ` Serge E. Hallyn
2012-09-15  9:27     ` Controlling devices and device namespaces Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-15 22:05       ` Serge E. Hallyn
2012-09-16  0:24         ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16  3:31           ` Serge E. Hallyn
2012-09-16 11:21           ` Alan Cox
2012-09-16 11:56             ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16 12:17               ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16 13:32                 ` Serge Hallyn
2012-09-16 14:23                   ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16 16:13                     ` Alan Cox
2012-09-16 17:49                       ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16 16:15                     ` Serge Hallyn
2012-09-16 16:53                       ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16  8:19   ` [RFC] cgroup TODOs James Bottomley
2012-09-16 14:41     ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-17 13:21     ` Aristeu Rozanski
2012-09-14 22:03 ` Dhaval Giani
2012-09-14 22:06   ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-20  1:33 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2012-09-20 18:26   ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-20 18:39     ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-09-21 21:40 ` Tejun Heo

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=505A725B.2080901@amacapital.net \
    --to=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \
    --cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
    --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).