Hello, Mike. On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 04:10:07AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 16:38 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, Waiman. > > > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 09:34:11AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > The rationale behind the cgroup v2 no internal process constraint is > > > to avoid resouorce competition between internal processes and child > > > cgroups. However, not all controllers have problem with internal > > > process competiton. Enforcing this rule may lead to unnatural process > > > hierarchy and unneeded levels for those controllers. > > > > This isn't necessarily something we can determine by looking at the > > current state of controllers. It's true that some controllers - pid > > and perf - inherently only care about membership of each task but at > > the same time neither really suffers from the constraint either. CPU > > which is the problematic one here... > > (+ cpuacct + cpuset) Yeah, cpuacct and cpuset are in the same boat as perf. cpuset is completely so and we can move the tree walk to the reader side or aggregate propagation for cpuacct as necessary. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
