On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 16:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 09:47:00AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > > I've read half of the next patch that adds the isolation thing. And > > > while that kludges around the whole root cgorup is magic thing, it > > > doesn't help if you move the above scenario on level down: > > > > > > > > > R > > > / \ > > > A B > > > / \ > > > C D > > > > > > > > > R: cpus=0-7, load_balance=0 > > > A: cpus=0-1, load_balance=1 > > > B: cpus=2-7, load_balance=0 > > > C: cpus=2-3, load_balance=1 > > > D: cpus=4-7, load_balance=1 > > > > > > > > > Also, I feel we should strive to have a minimal amount of tasks that > > > cannot be moved out of the root group; the current set is far too large. > > > > What exactly is the use case you have in mind with loading balancing > > disabled in B, but enabled in C and D? We would like to support some > > sensible use cases, but not every possible combinations. > > Suppose A is your system group, and C and D are individual RT workloads > or something. Yeah, it does have a distinct "640K ought to be enough for anybody" flavor to it. -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
