From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933616Ab2DLMdU (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:33:20 -0400 Received: from zene.cmpxchg.org ([85.214.230.12]:50032 "EHLO zene.cmpxchg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757494Ab2DLMdS (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:33:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:32:56 +0200 From: Johannes Weiner To: Glauber Costa Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , Daniel Walsh , "Daniel P. Berrange" , Li Zefan , LKML , Cgroups , Containers Subject: Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg Message-ID: <20120412123256.GI1787@cmpxchg.org> References: <20120411185715.GA4317@somewhere.redhat.com> <4F862851.3040208@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120412113217.GB11455@somewhere.redhat.com> <4F86BFC6.2050400@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F86BFC6.2050400@parallels.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 08:43:02AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 04/12/2012 08:32 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >>But I think increasing number of subsystem is not very good.... > >If the result is a better granularity on the overhead, I believe this > >can be a good thing. > > But again, since there is quite number of people trying to merge > those stuff together, you are just swimming against the tide. I don't see where merging unrelated controllers together is being discussed, do you have a reference? > If this gets really integrated, out of a sudden the overhead will > appear. So better care about it now. Forcing people that want to account/limit one resource to take the hit for something else they are not interested in requires justification. You can optimize only so much, in the end, the hierarchical accounting is just expensive and unacceptable if you don't care about a certain resource. For that reason, I think controllers should stay opt-in. Btw, can we please have a discussion where raised concerns are supported by more than gut feeling? "I think X is not very good" is hardly an argument. Where is the technical problem in increasing the number of available controllers? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Weiner Subject: Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:32:56 +0200 Message-ID: <20120412123256.GI1787@cmpxchg.org> References: <20120411185715.GA4317@somewhere.redhat.com> <4F862851.3040208@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120412113217.GB11455@somewhere.redhat.com> <4F86BFC6.2050400@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F86BFC6.2050400-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Glauber Costa Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Tejun Heo , Daniel Walsh , "Daniel P. Berrange" , Li Zefan , LKML , Cgroups , Containers On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 08:43:02AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 04/12/2012 08:32 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > >>But I think increasing number of subsystem is not very good.... > >If the result is a better granularity on the overhead, I believe this > >can be a good thing. > > But again, since there is quite number of people trying to merge > those stuff together, you are just swimming against the tide. I don't see where merging unrelated controllers together is being discussed, do you have a reference? > If this gets really integrated, out of a sudden the overhead will > appear. So better care about it now. Forcing people that want to account/limit one resource to take the hit for something else they are not interested in requires justification. You can optimize only so much, in the end, the hierarchical accounting is just expensive and unacceptable if you don't care about a certain resource. For that reason, I think controllers should stay opt-in. Btw, can we please have a discussion where raised concerns are supported by more than gut feeling? "I think X is not very good" is hardly an argument. Where is the technical problem in increasing the number of available controllers?