On 1/19/16 9:03 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 15:05:18 -0500
Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 12:59:15PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
cgroups have very nice properties that I want to leverage such as
parent-child inheritance and easy tracking which subsystem instance a task
belongs. This provides a great kernel foundation for building easy to use
management tools.
The documentation for cgroups does not restrict a controller to physical
resources but rather "it may be anything that wants to act on a group of
processes." That is exactly what I am doing here - I have a network config
that is applied to a group of processes similar to net_cls and net_prio (but
as I stated before those are orthogonal, independent settings from the L3
domain).
Please read the new version of cgroup documentation.
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tj/cgroup.git/tree/Documentation/cgroup.txt?h=for-4.5
cgroup has experienced a lot of problems doing its main job -
hierarchical resource control - from trying to support random things
which want to group threads. As shown with xt_cgroup, such
identifying usages can be implemented in a way where the subsystem
matches the membership rather than cgroup taking in configurations
which belong to the subsystem, so please investigate that direction.
Thanks.
Policy like this belongs in userspace not kernel.
This is the infrastructure that allows userspace to implement a policy -
the policy being binding tasks and their children to an L3 domain.
--
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
