[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXzrXJmZoFVfAXS1Zf9uNZjibnHizEhwgqdmRvnbJEksw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:12:58 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>, kernel-team@...com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2
On Sep 16, 2016 12:51 AM, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:08:07PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > BTW, Mike keeps mentioning exclusive cgroups as problematic with the
> > no-internal-tasks constraints. Do exclusive cgroups still exist in
> > cgroup2? Could we perhaps just remove that capability entirely? I've
> > never understood what problem exlusive cpusets and such solve that
> > can't be more comprehensibly solved by just assigning the cpusets the
> > normal inclusive way.
>
> Without exclusive sets we cannot split the sched_domain structure.
> Which leads to not being able to actually partition things. That would
> break DL for one.
Can you sketch out a toy example? And what's DL?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists