[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1204061347180.23328@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 13:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] cpusets, cpu_cgroup: disallow attaching kthreadd
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Furthermore, the whole point of kthreadd's existence is so that we could
> create kthreads without context. Placing it in a cgroup will ensure all
> subsequently created kthreads do have context (including possible idle
> threads). This seems like a particularly bad idea.
>
I don't see it as context if the only thing you're doing is accounting
with memcg (for slab) or or cpu. We're simply collecting statistics for a
set of threads (possibly all kthreads, including kthreadd) and the best
way to do this is leveraging the existing functionality of cgroups to
setup the threads we want to collect for and the memcg kmem accounting is
particularly a good indicator of kernel vs userjob-triggered slab
allocation.
--
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