From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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: Tue, 5 May 2015 10:09:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150505140912.GQ1971@htj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1430717964.3129.62.camel@gmail.com>
Hello, Mike.
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 07:39:24AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> But somehow I'm not feeling a whole lot better.
>
> "May" means if you don't explicitly take some action to disable group
> scheduling, you get it (I don't care if I have an off button), but that
In the new interface, hierarchy setup and controller configuration are
two separate steps. Creating subhierarchy doesn't enable controller
automatically and as long as specific controllers are concerned
nothing changes when subhierarchy is created and processes are moved
inbetween them. If control over specific resources is necessary in a
given hierarchy, the matching controllers should be enabled
explicitly.
Thanks.
--
tejun
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can_attach()
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 10:09:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150505140912.GQ1971@htj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1430717964.3129.62.camel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Hello, Mike.
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 07:39:24AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> But somehow I'm not feeling a whole lot better.
>
> "May" means if you don't explicitly take some action to disable group
> scheduling, you get it (I don't care if I have an off button), but that
In the new interface, hierarchy setup and controller configuration are
two separate steps. Creating subhierarchy doesn't enable controller
automatically and as long as specific controllers are concerned
nothing changes when subhierarchy is created and processes are moved
inbetween them. If control over specific resources is necessary in a
given hierarchy, the matching controllers should be enabled
explicitly.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-05 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-04 0:54 [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can_attach() Zefan Li
2015-05-04 0:54 ` Zefan Li
2015-05-04 3:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-04 3:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-04 4:39 ` Zefan Li
2015-05-04 4:39 ` Zefan Li
2015-05-04 5:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-04 5:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-04 5:39 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-04 5:39 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-04 9:11 ` Zefan Li
2015-05-04 9:11 ` Zefan Li
2015-05-04 12:08 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-04 12:08 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-04 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-04 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-04 14:09 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-05 3:46 ` Zefan Li
2015-05-05 3:46 ` Zefan Li
2015-05-05 6:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-05 6:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-05 3:54 ` Zefan Li
2015-05-05 3:54 ` Zefan Li
2015-05-05 14:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-05 14:18 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-05 15:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-05 16:31 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-05 19:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-05 19:06 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-05 19:06 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-06 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-06 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-05 14:41 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-05 15:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-05 16:13 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-05 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-05 18:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-05 19:00 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-05 19:00 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-06 9:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-05-05 18:31 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-05 14:09 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2015-05-05 14:09 ` 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=20150505140912.GQ1971@htj.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.