Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-3.11 1/3] cgroup: mark "tasks" cgroup file as insane

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 06/07/2013 02:12 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> The problem is that it doesn't make any sense to split threads of the
>> same process for at least two major controllers and you end up with
>> situation where you can't identify a resource to be belonging to a
>> certain cgroup because such level of granularity is simply undefined.
>> As I wrote before, we can special case certain controllers but I'm
>> extremely reluctant.  If you need it, please convince me.

It seems quite valid for me to split priority threads in a process and
give them a 80 % timeslice guarantee, while leaving only 20 % for
low-prio threads (for instance).

In general, I don't think that it would hurt to allow separation at
thread level *for the leaves*, specifically at the cpu related controllers.


_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers




[Index of Archives]     [Cgroups]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux