On 2013/4/6 9:21, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, guys. > > Status-quo > ========== > > It's been about a year since I wrote up a summary on cgroup status quo > and future plans. We're not there yet but much closer than we were > before. At least the locking and object life-time management aren't > crazy anymore and most controllers now support proper hierarchy > although not all of them agree on how to treat inheritance. > > IIRC, the yet-to-be-converted ones are blk-throttle and perf. cpu > needs to be updated so that it at least supports a similar mechanism > as cfq-iosched for configuring ratio between tasks on an internal > cgroup and its children. Also, we really should update how cpuset > handles a cgroup becoming empty (no cpus or memory node left due to > hot-unplug). It currently transfers all its tasks to the nearest > ancestor with executing resources, which is an irreversible process > which would affect all other co-mounted controllers. We probably want > it to just take on the masks of the ancestor until its own executing > resources become online again, and the new behavior should be gated > behind a switch (Li, can you please look into this?). > Sure, I'll be working on sane hierarchy behavior for cpuset. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
