Hello, Waiman. On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:53:53PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > Thanks for your comment. I understand your point making change via cgroup > interface files. However, this is not what the customers are asking for. It's not like we can always follow what specific customers request. If there are actual use-cases that can't be achieved with the existing interfaces and features, we can look into how to provide those but making interface decisions based on specific customer requests tends to lead to long term pains. > They are using tools that look at /proc/cpuinfo and the sysfs files. It is a > much bigger effort to make all those tools look at a new cgroup file > interface instead. It can be more efficiently done at the kernel level. Short term, sure, it sure is more painful to adapt, but I don't think longer term solution lies in the kernel trying to masquerage existing sytsem-wide information interfaces. e.g. cpuset is one thing but what are we gonna do about weight control or work-conserving memory controls? Pro-rate cpu count and available memory? > Anyway, I am OK if the consensus is that it is not a kernel problem and have > to be handled in userspace. I'd be happy to provide more information from kernel side as necessary but the approach taken here doesn't seem generic or scalable at all. > BTW, do you have any comment on another cpuset patch that I sent a week > earlier? > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210603212416.25934-1-longman@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > I am looking forward for your feedback. Sorry about the delay. Will take a look later today. Thanks. -- tejun
