[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YG38bBm+JJXIwgYq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 20:39:40 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: joel@...lfernandes.org, chris.hyser@...cle.com, joshdon@...gle.com,
mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
valentin.schneider@....com, mgorman@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 12:08:50PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I see. Yeah, if we really need it, I'm not sure it fits in cgroup interface
> proper. As I wrote elsewhere, these things are usually implemented on the
> originating subsystem interface with cgroup ID as a parameter.
This would be something like:
prctl(PR_SCHED_CORE, PR_SCHED_CORE_SHARE_FROM, cgroup-fd, PIDTYPE_CGROUP, NULL);
right? Where we assign to self the cookie from the cgroup.
The problem I see with this is that a task can trivially undo/circumvent
this by calling PR_SCHED_CORE_CLEAR on itself, at which point it can
share with system tasks again.
Also, it doesn't really transfer well to the group/tasks thing. When a
task joins a cgroup, it doesn't automagically gain the cgroup
properties. Whoever does the transition will then also have to prctl()
this, which nobody will do.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists