[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150505190603.GZ1971@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 15:06:03 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...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()
Hello, Peter.
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:00:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:31:12PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > What I don't want to happen is controllers failing migrations
> > willy-nilly for random reasons leaving users baffled, which we've
> > actually been doing unfortunately. Maybe we need to deal with this
> > fixed resource arbitration as a separate class and allow them to fail
> > migration w/ -EBUSY.
>
> Ah, _that_ was the problem.
>
> Which is something created by this co-mounting of controllers.
Yeah, partly, but also that it's an extra failure mode which isn't
necessary for most controllers.
> You could of course store the ss-id of the failing operation in
> task_struct and have a file reporting the name of the ss-id.
>
> That way, there is a simple way to find out which controller failed the
> migrate.
Given that the resources which can fail are very limited, I don't
think we need that right now as long as we limit and document the
possible failure cases clearly. Hopefully, this won't devolve into
collection of arbitrary failures.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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