On Fri 14-02-20 11:53:11, Johannes Weiner wrote: [...] > The proper solution to implement the kind of resource hierarchy you > want to express in cgroup2 is to reflect it in the cgroup tree. Yes, > the_workload might have been started by user 100 in session c2, but in > terms of resources, it's prioritized over system.slice and user.slice, > and so that's the level where it needs to sit: > > root > / | \ > system.slice user.slice the_workload > / | | > cron journal user-100.slice > | > session-c2.scope > | > misc > > Then you can configure not just memory.low, but also a proper io > weight and a cpu weight. And the tree correctly reflects where the > workload is in the pecking order of who gets access to resources. I have already mentioned that this would be the only solution when the protection would work, right. But I am also saying that this a trivial example where you simply _can_ move your workload to the 1st level. What about those that need to reflect organization into the hierarchy. Please have a look at http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200214075916.GM31689@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Are you saying they are just not supported? Are they supposed to use cgroup v1 for the organization and v2 for the resource control? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
