Hello,
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 05:49:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Well, they're upper limits, not strict allocations. The current
> > behavior implemented by cpu isn't either a strict allocation or upper
> > limits. It disallows a child from having a value higher than the
> > parent (allocation-ish) but the sum of the children is allowed to
> > exceed the parent's (limit-ish).
>
> True; but its still weird to have the parent 'promise' something and
> then retract that 'promise' later.
Yeah, depending on how you look at it, it can feel weird. It's just
that viewing these absolute resource limits (cpu.max,
memory.{high,max}, io.max, pids.max) as upper bounds seems to be the
best abstraction in terms of capturing what they do and making uses of
them in a robust way.
> > We had this sort of input validations in different controllers all in
> > their own ways. In most cases, these aren't well thought out and we
> > can't support things like delegation without aligning controller
> > behaviors.
>
> I suppose..
>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Will route it through cgroup fixes branch in a week or so.
Thanks a lot.
--
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
