Hello, On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:05:18AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > As a developer, I will be happy to support only one model and keep code > simple. I am only concerned that for blkcg we have still not charted > out a clear migration path. The warning message your patch is giving > out will work only if we decide to not treat task and groups at same > level. It may not be enough but it still is in the right direction. > > Another problem is that configuration isn't contained in cgroup > > proper. We need a way to assign weights to individual tasks which can > > be somehow directly compared against group weights. cpu cooks > > priority for this and blkcg may be able to cook ioprio but it's nasty > > and unobvious. Also, let's say we grow network bandwidth controller > > for whatever reason. What value are we gonna use? > > So if somebody cares about settting SO_PRIORITY for traffic originating > from a tasks, move it into a cgroup. Otherwise they all get default > priority. I don't know. Do we wanna add, say, prctl for memory weight too? > So to me, leaving this decision to userspace based on their requirement > makes sense. Leaving too many decisions to userland is one of the reasons that got us into this mess, so I'm not sold on flexibility for flexibility's sake. > Yes, creating a hidden group for tasks in current group should not be > hard from implementation point of view. But again, I am concerned about > configuration of hidden group and I also don't like the idea of taking > flexibility away from user to treat tasks and group at same level. I don't know. Create a reserved directory for it? I do like the idea of taking flexibility away form user unless it's actually useful but am a bit worried we might be too late for that. :( Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
