From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751871AbbEDFK4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2015 01:10:56 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:36718 "EHLO mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750790AbbEDFKr (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2015 01:10:47 -0400 Message-ID: <1430716247.3129.44.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can_attach() From: Mike Galbraith To: Zefan Li Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , LKML , Cgroups Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 07:10:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5546F80B.3070802@huawei.com> References: <5546C34C.7050202@huawei.com> <1430709236.3129.42.camel@gmail.com> <5546F80B.3070802@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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