[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8a671f47-ff1d-b470-987f-0b38badc21cb@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 17:21:37 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.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,
kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com, luto@...capital.net,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/9] cpuset: Expose cpus.effective and mems.effective
on cgroup v2 root
On 07/20/2018 01:09 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/20/2018 12:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:19:29PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> I am not against the idea of making it hierarchical eventually. I am
>>> just hoping to get thing going by merging the patchset in its current
>>> form and then we can make it hierarchical in a followup patch.
>> Where's the rush? Why can't we do this right in one go?
> For me, the rush comes from RHEL8 as it is a goal to have a fully
> functioning cgroup v2 in that release.
>
> I also believe that most of the use cases of partition can be satisfied
> with partitions at the first level children. Getting hierarchical
> partition right may drag on for half a year, maybe, giving our history
> with cpu v2 controller. No matter what we do to enable hierarchical
> partition in the future, the current model of using a partition flag is
> intuitive enough that it won't be changed at least for the first level
> children.
Peter, are you OK that or do you still want to have hierarchical
partition done before submission?
Thanks,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists