On Jan 31, 2008 11:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there a restriction in CFS that stops a given group from
> > simultaneously holding tasks and sub-groups? If so, couldn't we change
> > CFS to make it possible rather than enforcing awkward restrictions on
> > cgroups?
>
> I
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:39:56PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 6:40 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Here are some questions that arise in this picture:
> >
> > 1. What is the relationship of the task-group in A/tasks with the
> >task-group in A/a1/tasks
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 18:39 -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 6:40 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Here are some questions that arise in this picture:
> >
> > 1. What is the relationship of the task-group in A/tasks with the
> >task-group in A/a1/tasks? In o
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:37:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 23:39 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > As we were implementing multiple-hierarchy support for CPU
> > > controller, we hit some oddities in its implementation, partly
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 11:39:12PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As we were implementing multiple-hierarchy support for CPU
> > controller, we hit some oddities in its implementation, partly related
> > to current cgroups implementation. Peter and I have bee
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 06:39:56PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 6:40 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Here are some questions that arise in this picture:
> >
> > 1. What is the relationship of the task-group in A/tasks with the
> >task-group in A/a1/tasks
Paul Menage wrote:
[snip]
> BTW, I noticed this code in cpu_cgroup_create():
>
> /* we support only 1-level deep hierarchical scheduler atm */
> if (cgrp->parent->parent)
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> Is anyone working on allowing more levels?
>
Yes, Dhaval nad
On Jan 30, 2008 6:40 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Here are some questions that arise in this picture:
>
> 1. What is the relationship of the task-group in A/tasks with the
>task-group in A/a1/tasks? In otherwords do they form siblings
>of the same parent A?
I'd arg
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 08:10:49AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Hi,
> As we were implementing multiple-hierarchy support for CPU
> controller, we hit some oddities in its implementation, partly related
> to current cgroups implementation. Peter and I have been debating on the
> exact s
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 23:39 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As we were implementing multiple-hierarchy support for CPU
> > controller, we hit some oddities in its implementation, partly related
> > to current cgroups implementation. Peter and I have been deba
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Hi,
> As we were implementing multiple-hierarchy support for CPU
> controller, we hit some oddities in its implementation, partly related
> to current cgroups implementation. Peter and I have been debating on the
> exact solution and I thought of bringing that dis
Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Hi,
> As we were implementing multiple-hierarchy support for CPU
> controller, we hit some oddities in its implementation, partly related
> to current cgroups implementation. Peter and I have been debating on the
> exact solution and I though
Hi,
As we were implementing multiple-hierarchy support for CPU
controller, we hit some oddities in its implementation, partly related
to current cgroups implementation. Peter and I have been debating on the
exact solution and I thought of bringing that discussion to lkml.
Consider the cgr
13 matches
Mail list logo
