On 06/21/2017 05:39 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:37:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >>> What happens when we add domain handling to CPU so that it is both a >>> domain and resource controller? Even if that somehow can be resolved, >>> wouldn't that come with a rather surprising userland behavior changes? >>> Also, I'm not sure what we're achieving by doing this. It doesn't >>> really relax the restriction. It just turns it off implicitly when >>> certain conditions are met, which doesn't really allow any real >>> capabilities and at least to me the behaviors feel more subtle and >>> complicated than before. >> I think CPU isn't a good example for that. > Can you please elaborate? CPU is probably the most prominent controller where deep hierarchy has a performance cost. So I can't envision that it will forbid internal process competition. >> Another alternative is to treat no internal process as a controller >> attribute. Then we don't need to worry about this intricate question and >> let the controllers decide if they will allow internal processes. > Isn't that what "threaded" is? > That is exactly what this patch intends to do. However, you raised concern that threaded may not be equivalent to the need of allowing internal process. That is why I propose that. If your concern is only about the documentation change, we can certainly fix that. Cheers, Longman -- 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
