[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1430716247.3129.44.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 07:10:47 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Relax a restriction in sched_rt_can_attach()
On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 12:39 +0800, Zefan Li wrote:
> >> We are moving toward unified hierarchy where all the cgroup controllers
> >> are bound together, so it would make cgroups easier to use if we have less
> >> restrictions on attaching tasks between cgroups.
> >
> > Forcing group scheduling overhead on users if they want cpuset or memory
> > cgroup functionality would be far from wonderful. Am I interpreting the
> > implications of this unification/binding properly?
> >
> > (I hope not, surely the plan is not to utterly _destroy_ cgroup utility)
> >
>
> Some degree of flexibility is provided so that you may disable some controllers
> in a subtree. For example:
>
> root ---> child1
> (cpuset,memory,cpu) (cpuset,memory)
> \
> \-> child2
> (cpu)
Whew, that's a relief. Thanks.
-Mike
--
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