On 04/12/2012 01:38 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Johannes.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:30:55PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
But also, I believe this has been widely discussed in person by
people, in separate groups. Maybe Tejun can do a small writeup of
where we stand?
I'm still mulling over it. What I want is single hierarchy with more
unified rules regarding how different controllers handle the hierarchy
in such way that different controllers may interact - ie. memcg and
blkio can share the same page tags, or cgroup-freezer can provide
freezing service to other controllers. I want if a task belongs to
cgroup, it belongs to _the_ cgroup and you can figure out all cgroup
related stuff from there.
Agreed.
If you would allow me to side track (I'll answer the rest of the e-mail
separately to avoid confusion)
One of the things I attempted in cpu/cpuacct, is to patch in code with
static_branches when they are comounted. I so far temporarily failed
because some locking order rules, and could not yet go back to that.
But we could do something more general, that could work at least until
we actually finally finish whatever rework we're doing.
1) Right now, the controllers work independently, and that code will
have to live for at least some years anyway. So leave it there.
2) But also, insert optimization code that can be enabled/disabled when
companion cgroups are in the same hierarchy.
3) After we mount the cgroup, apply those optimization to all of them
from the cgroup core (the current bind stuff is just way to weird for
that, IMHO)
4) Then we start telling userspace people to favor co-mounts as much as
they can
5) Pray.
Of course this is a sketch, but what do you think?
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
