On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 09:20:15AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Peter. > > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 10:48:00AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Can you please put your efforts and the touted Google collaboration in > > fixing the existing cgroup mess? > > I suppose you're referring to Rik's flattened hierarchy patchset. > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190822021740.15554-1-riel@xxxxxxxxxxx > > Rik spent a lot of time and energy on it and IIRC one of the reasons why it > didn't get pushed further was the lack of any enthusiasm or support from the > upstream community. > > We can resurrect the discussion on that patchset but how is that connected > to sched_ext? I'm absolutely not taking any of this until at the very least the cgroup situation that's been created is solved. And even then, I fundamentally believe the approach to be detrimental to the scheduler eco-system. Witness the metric ton of toy schedulers written for it, that's all effort not put into improving the existing code. You guys Google/Facebook got us the cgroup thing, Google did a lot of the work for cpu-cgroup, and now you Facebook say you can't live with it because it's too expensive. Yes Rik did put a lot of effort into it, but Google shot it down. What am I to do? You Google/Facebook are touting collaboration, collaborate on fixing it. Instead of re-posting this over and over. After all, your main motivation for starting this was the cpu-cgroup overhead. >From where I'm sitting, you created a problem (cpu-cgroup) and now you're creating an even bigger problem as a work-around. Very much not appreciated.
