linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, davej@redhat.com, ben@decadent.org.uk,
	a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, pjt@google.com, lennart@poettering.net,
	kay.sievers@vrfy.org
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: <50471379.3060603@parallels.com>

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

  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 \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=davej@redhat.com \
    --cc=glommer@parallels.com \
    --cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
    --cc=lennart@poettering.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.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).