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 dedicated leaf subgroups for stuff like management
> software and launchers instead, so that their memory pools/LRUs are
> clearly delineated from other groups and seperately controllable. And
> we couldn't think of any meaningful configuration that could not be
> expressed in that scheme. I mean, it's the same thing, right?
No, not the same.
R
/ | \
t1 t2 A
/ \
t3 t4
Is fundamentally different from:
R
/ \
L A
/ \ / \
t1 t2 t3 t4
Because if in the first hierarchy you add a task (t5) to R, all of its A
will run at 1/4th of total bandwidth where before it had 1/3rd, whereas
with the second example, if you add our t5 to L, A doesn't get any less
bandwidth.
Please pull your collective heads out of the systemd arse and start
thinking.
--
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
