linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
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 12:17:11 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50470A87.1040701@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120905081439.GC3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>

On 09/05/2012 12:14 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Glauber.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:03:25PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> The goal here is to have distributions to do it, because they tend to
>> have a well defined lifecycle management, much more than upstream. Whoever
>> sets this option, can coordinate with upstream.
> 
> Distros can just co-mount them during boot.  What's the point of the
> config options?
> 

Pretty simple. The kernel can't assume the distro did. And then we still
need to pay a stupid big price in the scheduler.

After this patchset, We can assume this. And cpuusage can totally be
derived from the cpu cgroup. Because much more than "they can comount",
we can assume they did.

>>> Also, I really don't see much point in enforcing this almost arbitrary
>>> grouping of controllers.  It doesn't simplify anything and using
>>> cpuacct in more granular way than cpu actually is one of the better
>>> justified use of multiple hierarchies.  Also, what about memcg and
>>> blkcg?  Do they *really* coincide?  Note that both blkcg and memcg
>>> involve non-trivial overhead and blkcg is essentially broken
>>> hierarchy-wise.
>>
>> Where did I mention memcg or blkcg in this patch ?
> 
> Differing hierarchies in memcg and blkcg currently is the most
> prominent case where the intersection in writeback is problematic and
> your proposed solution doesn't help one way or the other.  What's the
> point?
> 

The point is that I am focusing at one problem at a time. But FWIW, I
don't see why memcg/blkcg can't use a step just like this one in a
separate pass.

If the goal is comounting them eventually, at some point when the issues
are sorted out, just do it. Get a switch like this one, and then you
will start being able to assume a lot of things in the code. Miracles
can happen.



  reply	other threads:[~2012-09-05  8:20 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 [this message]
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
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=50470A87.1040701@parallels.com \
    --to=glommer@parallels.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=davej@redhat.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 \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --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).