[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: How to draw values for /proc/stat
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 12:55 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 12:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Namespaces seem to be about limiting visibility, cgroups about
> > controlling resources.
> >
> > The two things are hopelessly disjoint atm, but I believe someone was
> > looking at this mess.
> I did take a look at this (if anyone else was, I'd like to know so we
> can share some ideas), but I am not convinced we should do anything to
> join them anymore. We virtualization people are to the best of my
> knowledge the only ones doing namespaces. Cgroups, OTOH, got a lot bigger.
> What I am mostly concerned about now, is how consistent they will be.
> /proc always being always global indeed does make sense, but my question
> still stands: if you live in a resource-controlled world, why should you
> even see resources you will never own ?

Since without namespaces you can still see the rest of the world. So it
makes sense to me to still see all resources too.

Also, proportional controllers might not see a consistent slice of the
resource, making the stats rather awkward to interpret.

Furthermore, not everybody might care about these statistics at all and
I know pjt objected to being subjected to the extra accounting (pjt do
speak up etc..).

> If it is not co-mounted, we draw the global value. If you don't mount
> it, I someone does not mount it, I can assure you he doesn't care about
> it. We for sure will.

Anyway, looking at the rest of the emails in this thread the current
proposal is a cgroup mount option that indicates if you want these
per-cgroup stats or not, right?

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-12 10:37    [W:0.073 / U:1.308 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site