From: Glauber Costa <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Tejun Heo <email@example.com> Cc: <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> Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] forced comounts for cgroups. Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 12:17:11 +0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <50470A87.email@example.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.
next prev parent 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.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 \ --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).