From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6910DC433DF for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 16:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DC7320724 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 16:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelfernandes.org header.i=@joelfernandes.org header.b="NFwcnfh/" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726782AbgF0QVu (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2020 12:21:50 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55136 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725882AbgF0QVt (ORCPT ); Sat, 27 Jun 2020 12:21:49 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-x142.google.com (mail-il1-x142.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::142]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64992C061794 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-il1-x142.google.com with SMTP id a11so2758142ilk.0 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelfernandes.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=d2nGKnDNsfGo+T6bDiJUevR3z7PJsbSGEM8ozMY3Q1c=; b=NFwcnfh/hEGQUYaebr5ifTcevv4BMj/OUSW0MFghU+HbUWf6KpGale9QHb5RwDiaBx aJAMQm43iK9a0We+F+fOwGtm09RZi99VihP6XW8Vt7QCFtXFA3WqRg2S4p5M2jHdUTBr tCwv0tvLARFVswsztggS3t1TgS7+ic/u0PK8A= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=d2nGKnDNsfGo+T6bDiJUevR3z7PJsbSGEM8ozMY3Q1c=; b=GNp9xJrg8MdEP/R0JVdUtYNsP4vRrJE76AZcZExVmq89HItnLhnuMQZXSVvPWRubcQ TtcDnvlVqN1DIAY2pSrhALirauSs72B+p0tY0biOIyFMwtCpsIMSbIga/zuTQEFc+OGk PAqCdPtXGF3995BVIY4HDbY88gVGadSKrGth/XCGo8M/ck2FnsnwbeyJc4U5ReYjn39D 3qONoIypLBCH3AbGLyEpUarGxPmc8Rj9N4FRi4BmrUGiSN8cE/8Q19Tkn+S1d7P2575/ Vxe2nPf6d+VrbGcvzQGck60bxNeiOK7Tlv1ELftS93h4qhoaRvQozKPNS3Jm4Ngyl/ZK 5HOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ytOFkfh9H+vX2JZXDc7QIBDlDEiDkHCVqPWBGtwjvSE8cvqDP YL09viBcWB8hps6qjz8wct2QWhYW7ttmLGxnj0GWpw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxaWQLg4tRKtkxU81Tpb7DsYNug/vR/dvA/QKhF6vaTkhjoouSApXIBfA+R3SUWPzgTTuRolvI1CkoS2seTfQc= X-Received: by 2002:a92:c0c8:: with SMTP id t8mr8832465ilf.176.1593274908687; Sat, 27 Jun 2020 09:21:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200626151028.GA538235@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20200626151028.GA538235@google.com> From: Joel Fernandes Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 12:21:36 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] Core scheduling v5 To: Vineeth Remanan Pillai Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , Julien Desfossez , Peter Zijlstra , Tim Chen , Linus Torvalds , Linux List Kernel Mailing , =?UTF-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBXZWlzYmVja2Vy?= , Ingo Molnar , Kees Cook , Thomas Gleixner , Greg Kerr , Phil Auld , Aaron Lu , Aubrey Li , "Li, Aubrey" , Valentin Schneider , Mel Gorman , Pawan Gupta , Paolo Bonzini , Paul Turner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:10 AM Joel Fernandes wrote: > [..] > > What do you think about having a separate cgroup for coresched? > > Both coresched cgroup and prctl() could co-exist where prctl could > > be used to isolate individual process or task and coresched cgroup > > to group trusted processes. > > This sounds like a fine idea to me. I wonder how Tejun and Peter feel about > having a new attribute-less CGroup controller for core-scheduling and just > use that for tagging. (No need to even have a tag file, just adding/removing > to/from CGroup will tag). Unless there are any major objections to this idea, or better ideas for CGroup users, we will consider proposing a new CGroup controller for this. The issue with CPU controller CGroups being they may be configured in a way that is incompatible with tagging. And I was also thinking of a new clone flag CLONE_CORE (which allows a child to share a parent's core). This is because the fork-semantics are not clear and it may be better to leave the behavior of fork to userspace IMHO than hard-coding policy in the kernel. Perhaps we can also discuss this at the scheduler MC at Plumbers. Any other thoughts? - Joel