[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1347621302.7172.22.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:15:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroup TODOs
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 13:58 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> The cpu ones handle nesting correctly - parent's accounting includes
> children's, parent's configuration affects children's unless
> explicitly overridden, and children's limits nest inside parent's.
The implementation has some issues with fixed point math limitations on
deep hierarchies/large cpu count, but yes.
Doing soft-float/bignum just isn't going to be popular I guess ;-)
People also don't seem to understand that each extra cgroup carries a
cost and that nested cgroups are more expensive still, even if the
intermediate levels are mostly empty (libvirt is a good example of how
not to do things).
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that we need to work on the awareness
of cost associated with all this cgroup nonsense, people seem to think
its all good and free -- or not think at all, which, while depressing,
seem the more likely option.
--
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