On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 11:59 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Mike. > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 09:43:01AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > The cost is part aesthetical and part practical. While less > > > elegant > > > than tree of uniform objects, it seems a stretch to call internal > > > / > > > leaf node distinction broken especially given that the model is > > > natural to some controllers. > > > > That justifies prohibiting proper usages of three controllers, cpu, > > cpuacct and cpuset? > > Neither cpuacct or cpuset loses any capability from the constraint as > there is no difference between tasks being in an internal cgroup or a > leaf cgroup nested under it. The only practical impact is that we > lose the ability to let internal tasks compete against sibling cgroups > for proportional control. I'm not getting it. A. entity = task[s] | cgroup[s] B. entity = task[s] ^ cgroup[s] A I get, B I don't, but you seem to be saying B, else we get the task competes with sibling cgroup business. Let /foo be an exclusive cpuset containing exclusive subset bar. How can any task acquire set foo affinity if B really really applies? My box calls me a dummy if I try to create a "proper" home for tasks, one with both no snobby neighbors and proper affinity. -Mike -- 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
