On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, Paul. > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 02:00:54PM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: >> > Hmmm... I'm trying to understand the usecases where having hierarchy >> > inside a process are actually required so that we don't end up doing >> > something complex unnecessarily. So far, it looks like an easy >> > alternative for qemu would be teaching it to manage priorities of its >> > threads given that the threads are mostly static - vcpus going up and >> > down are explicit operations which can trigger priority adjustments if >> > necessary, which is unlikely to begin with. >> >> What you're proposing is both unnecessarily complex and imprecise. >> Arbitrating competition between groups of threads is exactly why we >> support sub-hierarchies within cpu. > > Sure, and to make that behave half-way acceptable, we'll have to take > on significant amount of effort and likely complexity and I'm trying > to see whether the usecases are actually justifiable. I get that > priority based solution will be less precise and more complex on the > application side but by how much and does the added precision enough > to justify the extra facilities to support that? If it is, sure, > let's get to it but it'd be great if the concrete prolem cases are > properly identified and understood. I'll continue on the other reply. > No problem, I think the conversation is absolutely constructive/important to have and am happy to help drill down. > Thanks. > > -- > tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
