lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread
    Hi!

    On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 21:38:12 -0700
    Paul Menage <menage@google.com> wrote:

    > On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Florian Mickler <florian@mickler.org> wrote:
    > >
    > > Thinking about it.. I don't know much about cgroups, but I think a
    > > process can only be in one cgroup at a time.
    >
    > A thread can only be in one cgroup in each hierarchy at one time. You
    > can mount multiple cgroups hierarchies, with different resource
    > controllers on different hierarchies.
    >
    > >
    > > b) you can't use cgroup for other purposes anymore. I.e. if you want to
    > > have 2 groups that each only have half of the memory available, how
    > > would you then integrate the cgroup-ignore-for-idle-approach with this?
    >
    > You could mount the subsystem that provides the "ignore-for-idle"
    > support on one hierarchy, and partition the trusted/untrusted
    > processes that way, and the memory controller subsystem on a different
    > hierarchy, with whatever split you wanted for memory controls.
    >
    > Paul

    Thank you for the clarification. That renders my original objections
    more or less void.

    I've still got some doubts about the flexibility of this approach (think
    an open system with arbitrary software components). But with a userspace
    manager that sorts processes into the groups this may be a possible
    solution.

    But we should probably concentrate first on the requirements now. If we
    have a set of requirements everyone can agree too, we may be on our way
    to get a solution.

    Cheers,
    Flo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-03 13:27    [W:0.021 / U:30.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site