Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 15:57 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Mike. > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:07:37AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Let /foo be an exclusive cpuset containing exclusive subset bar. > > How can any task acquire set foo affinity if B really really > > applies? My box calls

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 15:57 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Mike. > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:07:37AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Let /foo be an exclusive cpuset containing exclusive subset bar. > > How can any task acquire set foo affinity if B really really > > applies? My box calls

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Mike. On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:07:37AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Let /foo be an exclusive cpuset containing exclusive subset bar. > How can any task acquire set foo affinity if B really really > applies? My box calls me a dummy if I try to create a "proper" home > for tasks, one

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Mike. On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:07:37AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Let /foo be an exclusive cpuset containing exclusive subset bar. > How can any task acquire set foo affinity if B really really > applies? My box calls me a dummy if I try to create a "proper" home > for tasks, one

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 11:59 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Mike. > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:43:01AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > The cost is part aesthetical and part practical. While less > > > elegant > > > than tree of uniform objects, it seems a stretch to call internal > > > / >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 11:59 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Mike. > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:43:01AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > The cost is part aesthetical and part practical. While less > > > elegant > > > than tree of uniform objects, it seems a stretch to call internal > > > / >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 11:59 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Are you saying that you're aware that google or another big outfit is > making active use of internal tasks competing against sibling cgroups > for proportional CPU distribution? If so, can you please be more > specific? What I'm aware of is

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 11:59 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Are you saying that you're aware that google or another big outfit is > making active use of internal tasks competing against sibling cgroups > for proportional CPU distribution? If so, can you please be more > specific? What I'm aware of is

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Mike. On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:43:01AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > The cost is part aesthetical and part practical. While less elegant > > than tree of uniform objects, it seems a stretch to call internal / > > leaf node distinction broken especially given that the model is > >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Mike. On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:43:01AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > The cost is part aesthetical and part practical. While less elegant > > than tree of uniform objects, it seems a stretch to call internal / > > leaf node distinction broken especially given that the model is > >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 18:29 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Peter. > > On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 03:39:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > While the separate buckets and entities model may not be as elegant as > > > tree of uniform objects, it is far from uncommon and more robust when > > >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 18:29 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Peter. > > On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 03:39:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > While the separate buckets and entities model may not be as elegant as > > > tree of uniform objects, it is far from uncommon and more robust when > > >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Peter. On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 03:39:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > While the separate buckets and entities model may not be as elegant as > > tree of uniform objects, it is far from uncommon and more robust when > > dealing with different types of objects. > > The graph does not

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Peter. On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 03:39:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > While the separate buckets and entities model may not be as elegant as > > tree of uniform objects, it is far from uncommon and more robust when > > dealing with different types of objects. > > The graph does not

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:11:35PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Yes, I'm familiar with the problem; but simply mandating leaf only nodes > > is not a solution, for the very simple fact that there are tasks in the > > root cgroup that cannot ever be moved out, so we _must_ be able to deal > > with

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:11:35PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Yes, I'm familiar with the problem; but simply mandating leaf only nodes > > is not a solution, for the very simple fact that there are tasks in the > > root cgroup that cannot ever be moved out, so we _must_ be able to deal > > with

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:11:35PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Widely diverging from > > > CPU's behavior, IO grouped all internal tasks into an internal leaf > > > node and used to assign a fixed weight to it. > > > > That's just plain broken... That is not how a proportional weight based > >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:11:35PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Widely diverging from > > > CPU's behavior, IO grouped all internal tasks into an internal leaf > > > node and used to assign a fixed weight to it. > > > > That's just plain broken... That is not how a proportional weight based > >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 16:11 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > That's just plain broken... That is not how a proportional weight based > > hierarchical controller works. > > That's a strong statement. When the hierarchy is composed of > equivalent objects as in CPU, not distinguishing internal and

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri, 2016-04-08 at 16:11 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > That's just plain broken... That is not how a proportional weight based > > hierarchical controller works. > > That's a strong statement. When the hierarchy is composed of > equivalent objects as in CPU, not distinguishing internal and

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Peter. On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:25:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > The balkanization was no coincidence either. Tasks and cgroups are > > different types of entities and don't have the same control knobs or > > follow the same lifetime rules. For absolute limits, it isn't clear >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Peter. On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:25:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > The balkanization was no coincidence either. Tasks and cgroups are > > different types of entities and don't have the same control knobs or > > follow the same lifetime rules. For absolute limits, it isn't clear >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 16:23 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Mike, is that the one you referred to with one group per customer > account? If so, would you have a pointer to where you outline it? The usage I loosely outlined, I did in this thread. All of the gory details I do not have, do not

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 16:23 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Mike, is that the one you referred to with one group per customer > account? If so, would you have a pointer to where you outline it? The usage I loosely outlined, I did in this thread. All of the gory details I do not have, do not

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:45:55PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Peter. > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:08:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > So it was a nice cleanup for the memory controller and I believe the > > > IO

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:45:55PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Peter. > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:08:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > So it was a nice cleanup for the memory controller and I believe the > > > IO

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:04:24PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > All this means here is that if you want to change the shares allocated > > to the tasks in R (or then L) you have to be explicit about it and > > update the

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:04:24PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > All this means here is that if you want to change the shares allocated > > to the tasks in R (or then L) you have to be explicit about it and > > update the

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Peter. On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:08:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > So it was a nice cleanup for the memory controller and I believe the > > IO controller as well. I'd be curious how it'd be a problem for CPU? > >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Peter. On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:08:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > So it was a nice cleanup for the memory controller and I believe the > > IO controller as well. I'd be curious how it'd be a problem for CPU? > >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:04:24PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > All this means here is that if you want to change the shares allocated > to the tasks in R (or then L) you have to be explicit about it and > update the weight configuration in L. Updating the weight of L for every task spawned

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:04:24PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > All this means here is that if you want to change the shares allocated > to the tasks in R (or then L) you have to be explicit about it and > update the weight configuration in L. Updating the weight of L for every task spawned

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:28:10AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > There was a lot of back and forth whether we should add a second set > > of knobs just to control the local tasks separately from the subtree, > > but ended up

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:28:10AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > There was a lot of back and forth whether we should add a second set > > of knobs just to control the local tasks separately from the subtree, > > but ended up

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:28:24AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hm? The root group can always contain tasks. It's not the only thing > the root is exempt from, it can't control any resources either: it does in fact control resouces; the hierarchy directly affects the proportional distribution

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 05:28:24AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hm? The root group can always contain tasks. It's not the only thing > the root is exempt from, it can't control any resources either: it does in fact control resouces; the hierarchy directly affects the proportional distribution

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:08:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:45:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > So I recently got made aware of the fact that cgroupv2 doesn't allow > > > tasks to be

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 10:08:33AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:45:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > So I recently got made aware of the fact that cgroupv2 doesn't allow > > > tasks to be

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > There was a lot of back and forth whether we should add a second set > of knobs just to control the local tasks separately from the subtree, > but ended up concluding that the situation can be expressed more > clearly by creating

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > There was a lot of back and forth whether we should add a second set > of knobs just to control the local tasks separately from the subtree, > but ended up concluding that the situation can be expressed more > clearly by creating

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:45:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So I recently got made aware of the fact that cgroupv2 doesn't allow > > tasks to be associated with !leaf cgroups, this is yet another > > capability of

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 03:35:47AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:45:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So I recently got made aware of the fact that cgroupv2 doesn't allow > > tasks to be associated with !leaf cgroups, this is yet another > > capability of

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 03:35 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:45:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So I recently got made aware of the fact that cgroupv2 doesn't > > allow > > tasks to be associated with !leaf cgroups, this is yet another > > capability of cpu-cgroup

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 03:35 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:45:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So I recently got made aware of the fact that cgroupv2 doesn't > > allow > > tasks to be associated with !leaf cgroups, this is yet another > > capability of cpu-cgroup

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:45:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > So I recently got made aware of the fact that cgroupv2 doesn't allow > tasks to be associated with !leaf cgroups, this is yet another > capability of cpu-cgroup you've destroyed. May I ask how you are using that? The behavior for

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 08:45:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > So I recently got made aware of the fact that cgroupv2 doesn't allow > tasks to be associated with !leaf cgroups, this is yet another > capability of cpu-cgroup you've destroyed. May I ask how you are using that? The behavior for

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

So I recently got made aware of the fact that cgroupv2 doesn't allow tasks to be associated with !leaf cgroups, this is yet another capability of cpu-cgroup you've destroyed. At this point I really don't see why I should spend another second considering anything v2. So full NAK and stop

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

So I recently got made aware of the fact that cgroupv2 doesn't allow tasks to be associated with !leaf cgroups, this is yet another capability of cpu-cgroup you've destroyed. At this point I really don't see why I should spend another second considering anything v2. So full NAK and stop

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:53:07PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Can you list applications which make use of CLONE_VM without > CLONE_THREAD? I ran into one two years ago or so; I forgot what it was, but it made perf misbehave because we too had assumed this not to happen. Eventually it turned out

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:53:07PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Can you list applications which make use of CLONE_VM without > CLONE_THREAD? I ran into one two years ago or so; I forgot what it was, but it made perf misbehave because we too had assumed this not to happen. Eventually it turned out

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 20:00 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Mike. > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 11:00 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Let's say there is an application which wants to manage resource > > > distributions across its

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Wed, 2016-04-06 at 20:00 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Mike. > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 11:00 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Let's say there is an application which wants to manage resource > > > distributions across its

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Mike. On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 11:00 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Let's say there is an application which wants to manage resource > > distributions across its multiple threadpools in a hierarchical way. > > With cgroupfs

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Mike. On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 06:40:35PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 11:00 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Let's say there is an application which wants to manage resource > > distributions across its multiple threadpools in a hierarchical way. > > With cgroupfs

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Michal. Sorry about the delay. On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:21:36PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > While I agree that per-thread granularity is no fun for controllers > which operate on different than task_struct entities (like memory cgroup > controller) but I am afraid that all the

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Michal. Sorry about the delay. On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:21:36PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > While I agree that per-thread granularity is no fun for controllers > which operate on different than task_struct entities (like memory cgroup > controller) but I am afraid that all the

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Peter. Sorry about the delay. On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:30:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:41:18AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > * A rgroup is a cgroup which is invisible on and transparent to the > > system-level cgroupfs interface. > > > > * A rgroup can

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Peter. Sorry about the delay. On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:30:13PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:41:18AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > * A rgroup is a cgroup which is invisible on and transparent to the > > system-level cgroupfs interface. > > > > * A rgroup can

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri 11-03-16 10:41:18, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for > in-process hierarchical resource control and implements PRIO_RGRP for > setpriority(2) on top to allow in-process hierarchical CPU cycle > control in a seamless way. >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri 11-03-16 10:41:18, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for > in-process hierarchical resource control and implements PRIO_RGRP for > setpriority(2) on top to allow in-process hierarchical CPU cycle > control in a seamless way. >

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:41:18AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > * A rgroup is a cgroup which is invisible on and transparent to the > system-level cgroupfs interface. > > * A rgroup can be created by specifying CLONE_NEWRGRP flag, along with > CLONE_THREAD, during clone(2). A new rgroup is

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:41:18AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > * A rgroup is a cgroup which is invisible on and transparent to the > system-level cgroupfs interface. > > * A rgroup can be created by specifying CLONE_NEWRGRP flag, along with > CLONE_THREAD, during clone(2). A new rgroup is

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 11:00 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > There can be use cases where building cpu resource hierarchy which is > completely alien to how the rest of the system is organized is useful. Well, from my POV it's the "process" oriented thingy that's the alien, and one that wants to meet

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 11:00 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > There can be use cases where building cpu resource hierarchy which is > completely alien to how the rest of the system is organized is useful. Well, from my POV it's the "process" oriented thingy that's the alien, and one that wants to meet

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 11:00 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Mike. > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 07:26:59AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Hrm. You're showing that per-thread groups can coexist just fine, > > which is good given need and usage exists today out in the wild. Why > > do such

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 11:00 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Mike. > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 07:26:59AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > Hrm. You're showing that per-thread groups can coexist just fine, > > which is good given need and usage exists today out in the wild. Why > > do such

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Mike. On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 07:26:59AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Hrm. You're showing that per-thread groups can coexist just fine, > which is good given need and usage exists today out in the wild. Why > do such groups have to be invisible with a unique interface though? I tried

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Mike. On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 07:26:59AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Hrm. You're showing that per-thread groups can coexist just fine, > which is good given need and usage exists today out in the wild. Why > do such groups have to be invisible with a unique interface though? I tried

Re: cgroup NAKs ignored? Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Ingo. On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 06:13:18PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > BTW, within the scheduler, "process" does not exist. [...] > > Yes, and that's very fundamental. I'll go into this part later. > And I see that many bits of the broken 'v2' cgroups ABI already snuck into > the >

Re: cgroup NAKs ignored? Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, Ingo. On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 06:13:18PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > BTW, within the scheduler, "process" does not exist. [...] > > Yes, and that's very fundamental. I'll go into this part later. > And I see that many bits of the broken 'v2' cgroups ABI already snuck into > the >

cgroup NAKs ignored? Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

* Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2016-03-12 at 07:26 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 10:41 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for > > > in-process hierarchical

cgroup NAKs ignored? Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

* Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2016-03-12 at 07:26 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 10:41 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for > > > in-process hierarchical resource control and

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Sat, 2016-03-12 at 07:26 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 10:41 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for > > in-process hierarchical resource control and implements PRIO_RGRP for > > setpriority(2) on

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Sat, 2016-03-12 at 07:26 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 10:41 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for > > in-process hierarchical resource control and implements PRIO_RGRP for > > setpriority(2) on

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 10:41 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for > in-process hierarchical resource control and implements PRIO_RGRP for > setpriority(2) on top to allow in-process hierarchical CPU cycle > control in a

Re: [PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 10:41 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for > in-process hierarchical resource control and implements PRIO_RGRP for > setpriority(2) on top to allow in-process hierarchical CPU cycle > control in a

[PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for in-process hierarchical resource control and implements PRIO_RGRP for setpriority(2) on top to allow in-process hierarchical CPU cycle control in a seamless way. cgroup v1 allowed putting threads of a process in

[PATCHSET RFC cgroup/for-4.6] cgroup, sched: implement resource group and PRIO_RGRP

Hello, This patchset extends cgroup v2 to support rgroup (resource group) for in-process hierarchical resource control and implements PRIO_RGRP for setpriority(2) on top to allow in-process hierarchical CPU cycle control in a seamless way. cgroup v1 allowed putting threads of a process in