Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:01:56 +0100 | From | Lennart Poettering <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups |
| |
On Wed, 17.11.10 09:57, Vivek Goyal (vgoyal@redhat.com) wrote:
> Being able to specify cgroup name/path is a good idea. That way one can > make use of cgroup hierarchy also. > > Thinking more about opt-in vs opt-out issue. Generally cgroups provide > some kind of isolation between application groups and in the process > can be somewhat expensive. More memory allocation, more accounting overhead > and for CFQ block controller it can also mean additional idling and can result > in overall reduced throughput. > > Keeping that in mind, is it really a good idea to launch each application > in a separate group. Will it be better to let user decide if the > application should be launched in a separate cgroup? > > The flip side is that how many people will really know about the functionality > and will really launch application in a separate group. And may be it is > a good idea to put everybody in a seprate cgroup by default even it means > some cost so that if a application starts consuming too much of resources > (make -j64), then its impact on rest of the groups can be contained. > > I really don't have strong inclination for one over other. Just thinking > loud...
I wouldn't be too concerned here. It's not that we end up with 1000s of groups here. It's way < 40 or in the end, for a single user machine. Which I think isn't that bad.
Lennart
-- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
| |