Re: [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can_attach()

From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can_attach()
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 07:10:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1430716247.3129.44.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5546F80B.3070802@huawei.com>

On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 12:39 +0800, Zefan Li wrote:

> >> We are moving toward unified hierarchy where all the cgroup controllers
> >> are bound together, so it would make cgroups easier to use if we have less
> >> restrictions on attaching tasks between cgroups.
> > 
> > Forcing group scheduling overhead on users if they want cpuset or memory
> > cgroup functionality would be far from wonderful.  Am I interpreting the
> > implications of this unification/binding properly?
> > 
> > (I hope not, surely the plan is not to utterly _destroy_ cgroup utility)
> > 
> 
> Some degree of flexibility is provided so that you may disable some controllers
> in a subtree. For example:
> 
> root                  ---> child1
> (cpuset,memory,cpu)        (cpuset,memory)
>                       \
>                        \-> child2
>                            (cpu)

Whew, that's a relief.  Thanks.

	-Mike