[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1460574934.3775.77.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:15:34 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.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 Wed, 2016-04-13 at 11:59 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Are you saying that you're aware that google or another big outfit is
> making active use of internal tasks competing against sibling cgroups
> for proportional CPU distribution? If so, can you please be more
> specific?
What I'm aware of is a big outfit that moves thread pool workers in/out
of a large number of cpu/cpuacct cgroups. What all a worker thread may
spawn in a cgroup, or find already there upon arrival and thus compete
with I do not know.
I'm baffled by why anyone would care which entity competes with which
other entity. An entity is an entity is an entity.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists