On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:24:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Anyways, a point here is that threads of the same process competing > > > isn't a new problem. There are many ways to make those threads play > > > nice as the application itself often has to be involved anyway, > > > especially for something like qemu which is heavily involved in > > > provisioning resources. > > > > It's certainly not a new problem, but it's a real one, and it's > > _hard_. You're proposing removing the best known solution. > > Also, just to make sure this is resolved properly, I'm NAK-ing the current > scheduler bits in this series: > > NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > > until all of pjt's API design concerns are resolved. This is conceptual, it > is not > a 'we can fix it later' detail. > > Tejun, please keep me Cc:-ed to future versions of this series so that I can > lift > the NAK if things get resolved.
You can add: NAKed-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> to that. There have been at least 3 different groups of people: - Mike, representing Suse customers - Kamezawa-san, representing Fujitsu customers - Paul, representing Google that claim per-thread control groups are in use and important. Any replacement _must_ provide for this use case up front; its not something that can be cobbled on later. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
