[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5056E1FC.1090508@parallels.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:40:28 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
<containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, 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>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroup TODOs
On 09/15/2012 12:39 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, again.
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:49:50PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> That said, if someone can think of a better solution, I'm all ears.
>> One thing that *has* to be maintained is that it should be able to tag
>> a resource in such way that its associated controllers are
>> identifiable regardless of which task is looking at it.
>
> So, I thought about it more. How about we do "consider / ignore this
> node" instead of "(don't) nest beyond this level". For example, let's
> assume a tree like the following.
>
> R
> / | \
> A B C
> / \
> AA AB
>
> If we want to differentiate between AA and AB, we'll have to consider
> the whole tree with the previous sheme - A needs to nest, so R needs
> to nest and we end up with the whole tree. Instead, if we have honor
> / ignore this node. We can set the honor bit on A, AA and AB and see
> the tree as
>
> R
> /
> A
> / \
> AA AB
>
> We still see the intermediate A node but can ignore the other
> branches. Implementation and concept-wise, it's fairly simple too.
> For any given node and controller, you travel upwards until you meet a
> node which has the controller enabled and that's the cgroup the
> controller considers.
>
> Thanks.
>
That is exactly what I proposed in our previous discussions around
memcg, with files like "available_controllers" , "current_controllers".
Name chosen to match what other subsystems already do.
if memcg is not in "available_controllers" for a node, it cannot be seen
by anyone bellow that level.
--
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