[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150824210223.GH28944@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:02:23 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, lizefan@...wei.com,
cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Implement interface for cgroup unified
hierarchy
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:54:08PM -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> > That alone doesn't require hierarchical resource distribution tho.
> > Setting nice levels reasonably is likely to alleviate most of the
> > problem.
>
> Nice is not sufficient here. There could be arbitrarily many threads
> within the hypervisor that are not actually hosting guest CPU threads.
> The only way to have this competition occur at a reasonably fixed
> ratio is a sub-hierarchy.
I get that having hierarchy of threads would be nicer but am having a
bit of difficulty seeing why adjusting priorities of threads wouldn't
be sufficient. It's not like threads of the same process competing
with each other is a new problem. People have been dealing with it
for ages. Hierarchical management can be a nice plus but we want the
problem and proposed solution to be justifiable.
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