Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1672073

Re: [RFC PATCH-cgroup 1/6] cgroup: Relax the no internal process constraint

Show all headers | View raw

Hello,

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:37:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > What happens when we add domain handling to CPU so that it is both a
> > domain and resource controller?  Even if that somehow can be resolved,
> > wouldn't that come with a rather surprising userland behavior changes?
> > Also, I'm not sure what we're achieving by doing this.  It doesn't
> > really relax the restriction.  It just turns it off implicitly when
> > certain conditions are met, which doesn't really allow any real
> > capabilities and at least to me the behaviors feel more subtle and
> > complicated than before.
> 
> I think CPU isn't a good example for that.

Can you please elaborate?

> Another alternative is to treat no internal process as a controller
> attribute. Then we don't need to worry about this intricate question and
> let the  controllers decide if they will allow internal processes.

Isn't that what "threaded" is?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFC PATCH-cgroup 1/6] cgroup: Relax the no internal process  constraint Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2017-06-21 22:50 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH-cgroup 1/6] cgroup: Relax the no internal process  constraint Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2017-06-21 23:40 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH-cgroup 1/6] cgroup: Relax the no internal process  constraint Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2017-06-22 00:00 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH-cgroup 1/6] cgroup: Relax the no internal process  constraint Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2017-06-22 00:10 +0200
  Re: [RFC PATCH-cgroup 1/6] cgroup: Relax the no internal process  constraint Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> - 2017-06-21 23:40 +0200

csiph-web