From: Tejun Heo <email@example.com> To: Glauber Costa <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups. Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 02:07:44 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20120905090744.GG3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Hello, Glauber. On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:55:21PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > > So, I think it's desirable for all controllers to be able to handle > > hierarchies the same way and to have the ability to tag something as > > belonging to certain group in the hierarchy for all controllers but I > > don't think it's desirable or feasible to require all of them to > > follow exactly the same grouping at all levels. > > By "different levels of granularity" do you mean having just a subset of > them turned on at a particular place? Heh, this is tricky to describe and I'm not really following what you mean. They're all on the same tree but a controller should be able to handle a given subtree as single group. e.g. if you draw the tree, different controllers should be able to draw different enclosing circles and operate on the simplifed tree. How flexible that should be, I don't know. Maybe it would be enough to be able to say "treat all children of this node as belonging to this node for controllers X and Y". > If yes, having them guaranteed to be comounted is still perceived by me > as a good first step. A natural following would be to turn them on/off > on a per-group basis. I don't agree with that. If we do it that way, we would lose differing granularity from forcing co-mounting and then restore it later when the subtree handling is implemented. If we can do away with differing granularity, that's fine; otherwise, it doesn't make much sense to remove and then restore it. Thanks. -- tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-05 9:07 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-09-04 14:18 Glauber Costa 2012-09-04 14:18 ` [RFC 1/5] cgroup: allow some comounts to be forced Glauber Costa 2012-09-04 14:18 ` [RFC 2/5] sched: adjust exec_clock to use it as cpu usage metric Glauber Costa 2012-09-04 14:18 ` [RFC 3/5] sched: do not call cpuacct_charge when cpu and cpuacct are comounted Glauber Costa 2012-09-04 14:18 ` [RFC 4/5] cpuacct: do not gather cpuacct statistics when not mounted Glauber Costa 2012-09-04 14:18 ` [RFC 5/5] sched: add cpusets to comounts list Glauber Costa 2012-09-04 21:46 ` [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 8:03 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-05 8:14 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 8:17 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-05 8:29 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 8:35 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-05 8:47 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 8:55 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-05 9:07 ` Tejun Heo [this message] 2012-09-05 9:06 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-05 9:14 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 9:06 ` Peter Zijlstra 2012-09-05 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra 2012-09-05 9:22 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 9:11 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 9:12 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-05 9:19 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 9:30 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-05 9:26 ` Peter Zijlstra 2012-09-05 9:31 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-05 9:45 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 9:48 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-05 9:56 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra 2012-09-06 20:38 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-06 22:39 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-06 22:45 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 9:32 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-05 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra 2012-09-06 20:46 ` Tejun Heo 2012-09-06 21:11 ` Paul Turner 2012-09-06 22:36 ` Glauber Costa 2012-09-08 13:36 ` Dhaval Giani
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=20120905090744.GG3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups.' \ /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
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).