Hello, Waiman.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 01:09:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> For me, that is the only good reason why we should keep the current
> behavior. So I am fine with that.
>
> + cgrp->dom_cgrp = cgrp->dom_cgrp;
>
> However, I am still puzzled by above line of code, should it be just
>
On 07/19/2017 12:29 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:23:14PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> If we could get rid of the invalid state completely that way, I'd
>>> completely agree with you but that isn't the case here as you noted
>>> yourself, so the choice between the tw
Hello, Peter.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 04:07:28PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 02:47:14PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Were there other things that caught your eyes?
>
> I didn't immediately see the point of "domain (threaded" output, and I
I'll probably drop the parens b
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:23:14PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > If we could get rid of the invalid state completely that way, I'd
> > completely agree with you but that isn't the case here as you noted
> > yourself, so the choice between the two isn't something trivially
> > clear. Both c
Hello, Waiman.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:12:31PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > +Marking a cgroup threaded makes it join the resource domain of its
> > +parent as a threaded cgroup. The parent may be another threaded
> > +cgroup whose resource domain is further up in the hierarchy. The root
> >
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 02:47:14PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Were there other things that caught your eyes?
I didn't immediately see the point of "domain (threaded" output, and I
think it might be useful to have a "threaded" column in /proc/cgroups.
But no, I've been over this a few times now and
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 08:41:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:54:56PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > Okay, we're kinda off the rails now. Just to verify that we're on the
> > same page, are you also saying that the following should be a valid
> > configuration?
> >
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:54:56PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Okay, we're kinda off the rails now. Just to verify that we're on the
> same page, are you also saying that the following should be a valid
> configuration?
>
> R (D)
> |
> A (D and has processes in it and controlle
Hello, Peter.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 07:28:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And now try to create another child C, should that be a domain or
> > threaded?
>
> Domain of course, as R must be a domain, and hence all its children
> start out as such.
I don't think it's a matter of course as
On 07/18/2017 01:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:26:09AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello, Peter.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:14:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> AFAICT this is not in fact what I suggested... :/
>> Heh, sorry about misattributing that. I was mos
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:26:09AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:14:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > AFAICT this is not in fact what I suggested... :/
>
> Heh, sorry about misattributing that. I was mostly referring to the
> overall idea of marking e
On 07/18/2017 01:10 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Waiman.
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:41AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Thinking about it some more. There is a place for invalid domain. It is
>> not the child of a threaded cgroup. It is the siblings of a threaded
>> cgroup whose parent is not
Hello, Waiman.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:37:41AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Thinking about it some more. There is a place for invalid domain. It is
> not the child of a threaded cgroup. It is the siblings of a threaded
> cgroup whose parent is not root.
>
>Root - A (domain) - B (domain)
On 07/17/2017 04:56 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/17/2017 10:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:07:20PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> v4: - Updated to marking each cgroup threaded as suggested by PeterZ.
>>>
>>> +On creation, a cgroup is always a domain cgroup and can be made
On 07/16/2017 10:07 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> +Threads
> +~~~
> +
> +cgroup v2 supports thread granularity for a subset of controllers to
> +support use cases requiring hierarchical resource distribution across
> +the threads of a group of processes. By default, all threads of a
> +process be
On 07/17/2017 10:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:07:20PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> v4: - Updated to marking each cgroup threaded as suggested by PeterZ.
>>
>> +On creation, a cgroup is always a domain cgroup and can be made
>> +threaded by writing "threaded" to the "cgrou
Hello, Peter.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:14:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> AFAICT this is not in fact what I suggested... :/
Heh, sorry about misattributing that. I was mostly referring to the
overall idea of marking each cgroup domain or threaded rather than
subtree.
> My proposal did not
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 10:07:20PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> v4: - Updated to marking each cgroup threaded as suggested by PeterZ.
>
> +On creation, a cgroup is always a domain cgroup and can be made
> +threaded by writing "threaded" to the "cgroup.type" file. The
> +operation is single direc
18 matches
Mail list logo
