[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20a152f9-664f-f503-dbb5-1dc857aa9088@fb.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:58:01 -0400
From: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
<kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2
On 08/16/2016 10:07 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 06:09:44PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
>> [ That, and a disturbing number of emotional outbursts against
>> systemd, which has nothing to do with any of this. ]
>
> Oh, so I'm entirely dreaming this then:
>
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/3905
>
> Completely unrelated.
>
> Also, the argument there seems unfair at best, you don't need cpu-v2 for
> buffered write control, you only need memcg and block co-mounted.
>
This isn't systemd dictating cgroups2 or systemd trying to get rid of
v1. But systemd is a common user of cgroups, and we do use it here in
production.
We're just sending patches upstream for the tools we're using. It's
better than keeping them private, or reinventing a completely different
tool that does almost the same thing.
-chris
Powered by blists - more mailing lists