There are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in cgroup2
interface.
* Stats from cpuacct being reported separately from the cpu stats.
* Use of different time units. Writable control knobs use
microseconds, some stat fields use nanoseconds while other cpuacct
stat fields use
There are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in cgroup2
interface.
* Stats from cpuacct being reported separately from the cpu stats.
* Use of different time units. Writable control knobs use
microseconds, some stat fields use nanoseconds while other cpuacct
stat fields use
There are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in cgroup2
interface.
* Stats from cpuacct being reported separately from the cpu stats.
* Use of different time units. Writable control knobs use
microseconds, some stat fields use nanoseconds while other cpuacct
stat fields use
There are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in cgroup2
interface.
* Stats from cpuacct being reported separately from the cpu stats.
* Use of different time units. Writable control knobs use
microseconds, some stat fields use nanoseconds while other cpuacct
stat fields use
Hello, Peter.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:05:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > * The stat file is sampling based and the usage files are calculated
> > from actual scheduling events. Is this because the latter is more
> > accurate?
>
> So I actually don't know the history of this stuff
Hello, Peter.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 06:05:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > * The stat file is sampling based and the usage files are calculated
> > from actual scheduling events. Is this because the latter is more
> > accurate?
>
> So I actually don't know the history of this stuff
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:41:35AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Not entirely sure I follow, we currently only update the current cgroup
> > and its immediate parents, no? Or are you looking to only account into
> > the current cgroup and propagate into the parents on reading?
>
> Yeah, shifting
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:41:35AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Not entirely sure I follow, we currently only update the current cgroup
> > and its immediate parents, no? Or are you looking to only account into
> > the current cgroup and propagate into the parents on reading?
>
> Yeah, shifting
Hello, Peter.
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:40:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > * On cgroup2, there is only one hierarchy. It'd be great to have
> > basic resource accounting enabled by default on all cgroups. Note
> > that we couldn't do that on v1 because there could be any number of
>
Hello, Peter.
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:40:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > * On cgroup2, there is only one hierarchy. It'd be great to have
> > basic resource accounting enabled by default on all cgroups. Note
> > that we couldn't do that on v1 because there could be any number of
>
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:17:45PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > What about the whole double accounting thing? Because currently cpuacct
> > and cpu do a fair bit of duplication. It would be very good to get rid
> > of that.
>
> I'm not that sure at this point. Here are my current thoughts on
>
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:17:45PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > What about the whole double accounting thing? Because currently cpuacct
> > and cpu do a fair bit of duplication. It would be very good to get rid
> > of that.
>
> I'm not that sure at this point. Here are my current thoughts on
>
Hello, Peter.
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 11:17:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > * "cpu.shares" is replaced with "cpu.weight" and operates on the
> > standard scale defined by CGROUP_WEIGHT_MIN/DFL/MAX (1, 100, 1).
> > The weight is scaled to scheduler weight so that 100 maps to 1024
> >
Hello, Peter.
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 11:17:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > * "cpu.shares" is replaced with "cpu.weight" and operates on the
> > standard scale defined by CGROUP_WEIGHT_MIN/DFL/MAX (1, 100, 1).
> > The weight is scaled to scheduler weight so that 100 maps to 1024
> >
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 02:48:08PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> There are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in cgroup2
> interface.
>
> * Stats from cpuacct being reported separately from the cpu stats.
>
> * Use of different time units. Writable control knobs use
> microseconds,
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 02:48:08PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> There are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in cgroup2
> interface.
>
> * Stats from cpuacct being reported separately from the cpu stats.
>
> * Use of different time units. Writable control knobs use
> microseconds,
There are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in cgroup2
interface.
* Stats from cpuacct being reported separately from the cpu stats.
* Use of different time units. Writable control knobs use
microseconds, some stat fields use nanoseconds while other cpuacct
stat fields use
There are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in cgroup2
interface.
* Stats from cpuacct being reported separately from the cpu stats.
* Use of different time units. Writable control knobs use
microseconds, some stat fields use nanoseconds while other cpuacct
stat fields use
>From ed6d93036ec930cb774da10b7c87f67905ce71f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:31:23 -0500
While the cpu controller doesn't have any functional problems, there
are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in the v2
interface.
* cpuacct
>From ed6d93036ec930cb774da10b7c87f67905ce71f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:31:23 -0500
While the cpu controller doesn't have any functional problems, there
are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in the v2
interface.
* cpuacct being a separate
While the cpu controller doesn't have any functional problems, there
are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in the v2
interface.
* cpuacct being a separate controller. This separation is artificial
and rather pointless as demonstrated by most use cases co-mounting
the two
While the cpu controller doesn't have any functional problems, there
are a couple interface issues which can be addressed in the v2
interface.
* cpuacct being a separate controller. This separation is artificial
and rather pointless as demonstrated by most use cases co-mounting
the two
22 matches
Mail list logo