Hi,
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> We are organizing containers mini-summit during next Linux Plumbers (San
> Diego, August 29-31).
> The idea is to gather and discuss everything relevant to namespaces,
> cgroups, resource management,
> checkpoint-restore a
[Adding a few more people and the containers to the copy]
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Tommaso Cucinotta
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to get some understanding of the current cgroups in-kernel
> implementation
> (after having read Documentation/cgroup* and having browsed a bit the code).
> To
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Subrata Modak
wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Is there any specific person(s) whom we whom we should direct this mail
> to ? We have not received any response from CGROUP developers on this.
> Kindly let me know whom to contact for this. I am adding few more people
> i know
get some acks from the cgroups maintainers? I'll
> gladly take it through my tree.
>
while I am not a maintainer, from the libcgroup side at least,
Acked-by: Dhaval Giani
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
_
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:08, Dhaval Giani wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:31:07AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Gr
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Balbir Singh
wrote:
> On Friday 22 January 2010 05:03 PM, william wrote:
>> Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> On Friday 22 January 2010 11:04 AM, william wrote:
>>>
Hello list
I have a question about how i can limit the cpu for a firefox process on
a ter
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 03:39:18PM +0530, Rishikesh wrote:
> Hi Dhaval,
>
> Today i tried 2 more scenario requested by you on -tip kernel:
>
> 1> mount cpu on cgroup & other susbsystems ( ns, cpuset,freezer...
> except cpu) on cgroup1 e.g:.
> /root/lxc on /cgroup type cgroup
> (rw,ns,cpuset,fre
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:25:46PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Matt Helsley wrote:
> >
> > If anything, "standardizing" the mount point(s) will likely provide a false
> > sense of uniformity and we'll get some bad userspace scripts/tools that
> > break when "nonstan
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:35:30PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Jan Safranek [2009-11-04 17:02:22]:
>
> > On 11/04/2009 04:21 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > >On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 13:46 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > >>The reason I liked /dev/cgroup was because cpusets could be
> > >>mounted at /de
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 02:28:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> (switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the
> bugzilla web interface).
>
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:32:30 GMT
> bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
>
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?
[Adding the scheduler maintainers to the cc]
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:03:22PM +0530, Rishikesh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am hitting this soft lock issue while running this scenario on
> 2.6.31-rc7 kernel on SystemX 32 bit on multiple machines.
>
> Opened bug : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi
[Adding peterz to the cc]
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:49:52PM +0100, Rolando Martins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to confirm the following:
> cpuset.sched_load_balance doesn't work with RT, right?
> You cannot have tasks for sub-domain 2 to utilize bandwidth of
> sub-domain 3, right?
>
>
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:00:27PM +0530, Mukesh G wrote:
> Hi,
>I am trying to understand the behavior of CPU containers as I
> am unable to explain few things.
> - Built the latest kernel 2.6.30.5 and installed on my Intel core2Duo desktop
>
> - Mounted the cpu subsystem using
>
>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:32:51PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As I have notified before, The 1st Linux IO controller Mini-Summit
> will be held in Tokyo Japan on Oct 17 -- day before the 9th Linux
> kernel summit. So I would like to propose the following topics for
> the mini-summit
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 04:26:21PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> Support named cgroups hierarchies
>
> To simplify referring to cgroup hierarchies in mount statements, and
> to allow disambiguation in the presence of empty hierarchies and
> multiply-bindable subsystems this patch adds support for na
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 04:02:11PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Paul Menage wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Bharata B
>> Rao wrote:
>>
>>> - Hard limits can be used to provide guarantees.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This claim (and the subsequent long thread it generated on how limits
>> can pro
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:51:18AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> >> > Now if 11th group with same shares comes in, then each group will now
> >> > get 9% of CPU and that 10% guarantee breaks.
> >>
> >
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:32:51AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Bharata B Rao
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Suppose 10 cgroups each want 10% of the machine's CPU. We can just
> >> give each cgroup an equal share, and they're guaranteed 10% if they
> >> try to use it; if they do
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 05:14:58PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 05:34:21PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 May 2009 16:35:14 +0800
> >> Li Zefan wrote:
> >>
> >>> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 05:34:21PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 16:35:14 +0800
> Li Zefan wrote:
>
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:00:12 +0800
> > > Li Zefan wrote:
> > >
> > >> Now we have 'stat' file in both memory and cpuacct subsystems. If
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 05:56:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So, we shall have to come up with something better, I think Dhaval was
> implementing upper limit for cpu controller. May be PeterZ and Dhaval can
> give us some pointers how did they manage to implement both proportional
> and
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 02:37:53PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 10:37:59PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
>
> [..]
> > >
> > > - I can think of atleast one usage of uppper limit controller where we
> > > might have spare IO resources still we don't want to give it to a
> > >
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:36:49PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 21:46 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Peter Zijlstra (pet...@infradead.org):
> > > On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 16:16 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > In a kernel compiled with CONFIG_USER_SCHED=y, cpu s
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 09:56:46PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> o Documentation for io-controller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal
> ---
> Documentation/block/io-controller.txt | 221
> +
> 1 files changed, 221 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 D
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:20:31AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:00:05 -0800
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:35:55 +0900
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> >
> > > When I wrote tools for maintain cgroup, I can't find which file is
> > > writable inta
rchy",
> > @@ -2263,6 +2266,7 @@ static struct cftype memsw_cgroup_files[
> > .name = "memsw.usage_in_bytes",
> > .private = MEMFILE_PRIVATE(_MEMSWAP, RES_USAGE),
> > .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_read,
> > + .mode
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 03:37:52PM +0530, Mukesh G wrote:
> Hi Dhaval,
> Thanks for clarifying some doubts. Further to your mail and my
> understanding, I can make some conclusions
>
> 1) Even though there is a hierarchical order for containers, the shares are
> not allocated in terms of that
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:58:16PM +0530, Mukesh G wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need your help in clarifying some doubts...
>
> I have setup a container for cpu. Within the container with a cpu.shares of
> 1024 (default), which is made up of 2 cpu containers (C2048; cpu.shares
> 2048) and (C1024: cpu.share
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 07:24:58PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> 4. Binary statistics - The question about binary statistics was raised. Since
> control groups don't enforce any particular kind of API, is there a way to
> generically handle control files and their parameters in the library? Paul
>
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 11:48:31PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Li Zefan wrote:
>> CC: Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Dhaval Giani wrote:
>>> [put in the wrong alias for containers list correcting it.]
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:28:07PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> CC: Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > [put in the wrong alias for containers list correcting it.]
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:15:45PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> &
[put in the wrong alias for containers list correcting it.]
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 03:15:45PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Attaching PID 0 to a cgroup caused the current task to be attached to
> the cgroup. Looking at the code,
>
&g
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 04:33:11PM +0800, Zhao Forrest wrote:
>
> Thank you for your detailed explanation! I have one more question:
> cgrouping and USER grouping is mutual exclusive, am I right? That is,
> when enabling cgrouping, USER grouping need to be disabled, vice
> versa.
>
Yes, you are
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 09:53:05PM +0900, Midori Sugaya wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> My name is Midori Sugara. I work for implementing cpu resource
> management system on Linux kernenl. I had already implemented cpu
> and memory resource management system named CABI.
> Now we are trying to re-impleme
> +static int task_cgroup_max_tasks_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> +struct cftype *cftype,
> +s64 max_tasks)
> +{
> + struct task_cgroup *taskcg;
> +
> + if ((max_tasks > INT_MAX) ||
> + (max_tasks < INT_MIN))
It
On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 02:01:52AM +0530, Balaji Rao wrote:
> On Sunday 06 April 2008 01:10:41 am Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +struct cpu_cgroup_stat_cpu {
> > > + s64 count[CPU_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS];
> >
> > u64? time does not g
off-by: Balaji Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 8206fda..e2acf06 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -164,10
k question? Why? Everywhere in the CFS we use precise accounting,
(even within the CPU controller). Doesn't make sense using ticks here
then.
Will review and respond soon.
Thanks,
Dhaval
> Signed-off-by: Balaji Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: D
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:35:23PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> I announced this last week at the bottom of a long email, but
> figure it deserves a separate announce :)
>
> Unofficial word from the OLS folks is that the containers
> mini-summit is on. So far we don't yet know whether it will
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 01:56:23PM +0200, Xpl++ wrote:
> Hi Dhaval,
>
> Dhaval Giani ??:
>>> I was wonder if creating such library makes any sense at all, considering
>>> the nature of cgroups, the way they work and their possible application?
>>> It seem
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 02:41:41AM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So there are two different points, /mem and /cpu. /mem has A and C and
> > /cpu has A, B and C. A and B of /cpu correspo
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 10:15:20PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> Hi Dhaval,
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have been working on a library for control groups which would provide
> > simp
rked children). This also gives you more
> flexibility than you can have in the kernel - you can base your
> decision on more complex factors than simply the uid of the process.
>
> Dhaval Giani had a prototype implementation of such a daemon.
>
The daemon was posted at
http://artic
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your comments.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 07:15:51PM +0200, Xpl++ wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wonder if creating such library makes any sense at all, considering
> the nature of cgroups, the way they work and their possible application?
> It seems to me that any attempt to create a
Hi,
We have been working on a library for control groups which would provide
simple APIs for programmers to utilize from userspace and make use of
control groups.
We are still designing the library and the APIs. I've attached the
design (as of now) to get some feedback from the community whether
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:37:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 23:39 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > As we were implementing multiple-hierarchy support for CPU
> > > controller, we hit some oddities in its implementation, partly
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:39:12PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As we were implementing multiple-hierarchy support for CPU
> > controller, we hit some oddities in its implementation, partly related
> > to current cgroups implementation. Peter and I have bee
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:39:56PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 6:40 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Here are some questions that arise in this picture:
> >
> > 1. What is the relationship of the task-group in A/tasks with the
> >task-group in A/a1/tasks
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 09:40:43AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Dhaval Giani ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> Ok I figured resource mgmt and cgroups would be combined, but I'm fine
> splitting them. So can I do:
>
> cgroups: Paul Menage, Balbir
> Resource Manage
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 02:28:13PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Kir Kolyshkin wrote:
> > Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> Quoting Kir Kolyshkin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >>
> >>> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >>>
> mini-summit:
> I will submit for a 1-day mini-summit. Some interesting
> >>>
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 01:00:07AM +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> Dhaval,
>
> so following the analysis in the previous mail... here is a test
> patch. Could you please give it a try?
>
Yep, it works!
Tested-by: Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
thanks
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:22:08AM +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 14/12/2007, Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > argh... it's a consequence of the 'current is not kept within the tree"
> > > indeed.
> > >
> >
> > Than
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 09:06:07PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:24:28PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> just to be sure SMP does matter here (most likely yes, I guess).
> > >>
> > >
> > >NUMA? I am not able to
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 11:24:28PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> just to be sure SMP does matter here (most likely yes, I guess).
> >>
> >
> >NUMA? I am not able to reproduce it here locally on an x86 8 CPU box.
> >
> yes. I used NUMA. 2 Nodes/4CPU x 2
>
OK, I got hold of an IA64 box, non
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:47:13PM +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 14/12/2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Here is much easier test.
> > (I'm sorry I'll be absent tomorrow.)
> >
> > the number of cpus is 8. ia64/NUMA.
> >
> > The hang occurs when the number of tasks is not
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 07:58:37PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> Here is much easier test.
Thanks for the test! Let me see if I can reproduce it here.
--
regards,
Dhaval
___
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.o
evious
> one, but I remember that some time ago I sent a similar patch
> (fixing the error path and cleaning it), but I was told to make
> two patches in such cases.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Looks good.
Acked-by: Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 01:49:33PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> The commit
>
> commit 5cb350baf580017da38199625b7365b1763d7180
> Author: Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon Oct 15 17:00:14 2007 +0200
>
> sched: group scheduling, sysfs tunables
>
&
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 02:31:42PM +1300, Sam Vilain wrote:
> I see that 2.6.23 has the CFS in it - has anyone written a CPU
> controller for that scheduler yet?
Hi Sam,
Yes, it has been written. It is slated to go in 2.6.24 as part of the
CFS-devel tree. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/24/412
The l
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:00:33PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:34:15 +0530 Dhaval Giani wrote:
> >
> >
> > +config RESOURCE_COUNTERS
> > + bool "Resource counters"
> > + help
> > + This option enables controller i
y containers) based fair group scheduling.
> > This will let administrator create arbitrary groups of tasks (using
> > "cgroup" pseudo filesystem) and control their cpu bandwidth usage.
> >
> > Signed-off-by : Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 04:17:10PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
>
> I think this is the right way to handle the lockdep false-positive in
> the current containers patches, but I'm not that familiar with lockdep
> so any suggestions for a better approach are welcomed.
>
>
> In order to avoid a false
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 02:12:28PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
Hi Andrew,
> The code was also tested on a power box with regular machine usage scenarios,
> the config disabled and with a stress suite that touched all the memory
> in the system and was limited in a container.
>
> Dhaval ran severa
n_lock to protect the per container LRU
> + */
> + spinlock_t lru_lock;
> };
The spinlock is not annotated by lockdep. The following patch should do
it.
Signed-off-by: Dhaval Giani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Gautham Shenoy R <[EM
This example does not work. To do so we need to do
/bin/echo 2-3 > cpus
/bin/echo 1 > mems
> + /bin/echo $$ > tasks
> + sh
> + # The subshell 'sh' is now running in container Charlie
> + # The next line should display '/Charlie'
> + cat /pro
65 matches
Mail list logo
