Hello, Vikas. On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 11:50:16AM -0700, Vikas Shivappa wrote: > I will make this more clear in the documentation - We intend this cgroup > interface to be used by a root or superuser - more like a system > administrator being able to control the allocation of the threads , the one > who has the knowledge of the usage and being able to decide.
I get that this would be an easier "bolt-on" solution but isn't a good solution by itself in the long term. As I wrote multiple times before, this is a really bad programmable interface. Unless you're sure that this doesn't have to be programmable for threads of an individual applications, this is a pretty bad interface by itself. > There is already a lot of such usage among different enterprise users at > Intel/google/cisco etc who have been testing the patches posted to lkml and > academically there is plenty of usage as well. I mean, that's the tool you gave them. Of course they'd be using it but I suspect most of them would do fine with a programmable interface too. Again, please think of cpu affinity. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
