[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160407104259.GQ3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:42:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com, lizefan@...wei.com,
pjt@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource
group and PRIO_RGRP
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:28:24AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hm? The root group can always contain tasks. It's not the only thing
> the root is exempt from, it can't control any resources either:
it does in fact control resouces; the hierarchy directly affects the
proportional distribution of time.
> sched_group_set_shares():
>
> /*
> * We can't change the weight of the root cgroup.
> */
> if (!tg->se[0])
> return -EINVAL;
The root has, per definition, no siblings, so setting a weight is
entirely pointless.
> tg_set_cfs_bandwidth():
>
> if (tg == &root_task_group)
> return -EINVAL;
>
We have had patches to implement this, but have so far held off because
they add a bunch of cycles to some really hot paths and we'd rather not
do that. Its not impossible, or unthinkable to do this otherwise.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists