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 12:55:21 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50471379.3060603@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120905084740.GE3195@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>

On 09/05/2012 12:47 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Glauber.
> 
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 12:35:11PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>> As long as cpuacct and cpu are separate, I think it makes sense to
>>> assume that they at least could be at different granularity.  
>>
>> If they are comounted, and more: forceably comounted, I don't see how to
>> call them separate. At the very best, they are this way for
>> compatibility purposes only, to lay a path that would allow us to get
>> rid of the separation eventually.
> 
> I think this is where we disagree.  I didn't mean that all controllers
> should be using exactly the same hierarchy when I was talking about
> unified hierarchy.  I do think it's useful and maybe even essential to
> allow differing levels of granularity.  cpu and cpuacct could be a
> valid example for this.  Likely blkcg and memcg too.
> 
> 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?

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.





  reply	other threads:[~2012-09-05  8:58 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 [this message]
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=50471379.3060603@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).