[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120223223457.GJ22536@google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:34:57 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] cgroup: about multiple hierarchies
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 04:38:47PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:41:34AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 11:57 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > >
> > > Again, it does not mean I am advocating flat hiearchy. I am just wondering
> > > in case of fully nested hierarchies (task at same level as groups), how
> > > does one explain it to a layman user who understands things in terms of
> > > % of resources.
> >
> > If your complete control is % based then I would assume its a % of a %.
> > Simple enough.
>
> But % of % will vary dynamically and not be static. So if root has got
> 100% of resources and we want 25% of that for a group, then hierarchy
> might look as follows.
It is complex but semantics is pretty well defined. It should behave
exactly the same as HTB. Whether the complexity would be justifiable
is a different issue.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists