Hey,
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:50:09PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> I think CPU isn't a good example for that.
> > Can you please elaborate?
>
> CPU is probably the most prominent controller where deep hierarchy has a
> performance cost. So I can't envision that it will forbid internal
> proce
On 06/21/2017 05:39 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:37:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> What happens when we add domain handling to CPU so that it is both a
>>> domain and resource controller? Even if that somehow can be resolved,
>>> wouldn't that come with a rather
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:37:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > What happens when we add domain handling to CPU so that it is both a
> > domain and resource controller? Even if that somehow can be resolved,
> > wouldn't that come with a rather surprising userland behavior changes?
> > Als
On 06/21/2017 04:40 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Waiman.
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:05:32AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> 2-4-3. No Internal Process Constraint
>>
>> +When a non-root cgroup distributes resources to their children while
>> +having processes of its own, its internal processes
Hello, Waiman.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:05:32AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> 2-4-3. No Internal Process Constraint
>
> +When a non-root cgroup distributes resources to their children while
> +having processes of its own, its internal processes will then compete
> +against its children in term
The no internal process contraint is rather limiting. The fact that
threaded cgroups are exempt from this rule means that the restriction
is actually not needed in some cases.
Rather than having threaded cgroups as exceptions, the no internal
process contraint is now relaxed to apply only when tho
6 matches
Mail list logo
