[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F863AD5.3010505@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 23:15:49 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg
On 04/11/2012 10:07 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> You could also twist this around and argue the same for cpu usage and
> make it part of the cpu cgroup, but it doesn't really fit in either
> subsystem, IMO.
I myself really prefer this in the cpu controller.
Besides the bytes vs objects things, Whenever you create a process, at
some point it will end up in the runqueues to be scheduled. It is a
natural point of accounting.
Either that, or making it a core feature of cgroups, like limiting the
number of processes in the tasks file (just have to find a natural way
to make it hierarchical). It will make more and more sense as people
seem to be favoring single hierarchies these days. (granted, not a
settled discussion, so your views may vary)
--
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