[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1e775dcf-61b2-29d5-a214-350dc81c632b@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:12:42 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com,
luto@...capital.net, efault@....de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] cgroup: Implement new thread mode semantics
On 06/01/2017 04:52 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 04:48:48PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> I think we are on agreement here. I should we should just document how
>> userland can work around the internal process competition issue by
>> setting up the cgroup hierarchy properly. Then we can remove the no
>> internal process constraint.
> Heh, we agree on the immediate solution but not the final direction.
> This requirement affects how controllers implement resource control in
> significant ways. It is a restriction which can be worked around in
> userland relatively easily. I'd much prefer to keep the invariant
> intact.
>
> Thanks.
>
Are you referring to keeping the no internal process restriction and
document how to work around that instead? I would like to hear what
workarounds are currently being used.
Anyway, you currently allow internal process in thread mode, but not in
non-thread mode. I would prefer no such restriction in both thread and
non-thread mode.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists