[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v6

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 08:06:46PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:58:48AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Can you please rebase the patchset on top of cgroup/for-3.3?
> Sure. But please note its fate is still under discussion. Whether
> we want it upstream is still a running debate. But I certainly
> need to rebase against your tree.

I see.

> > I primarily like the idea of being able to track process usage w/ cgroup
> > and enforce limits on it but hope that it could somehow integrate w/
> > cgroup freezer. ie. trigger freezer if it goes over limit and let the
> > userland tool / administrator deal with the frozen cgroup. I'm
> > planning on extending cgroup freezer such that it supports recursive
> > freezing and killing of frozen tasks. If we can fit task counters
> > into that, we'll have general method of handling problematic cgroups -
> > freeze, notify userland and let it deal with it.
> Hmm, so you suggest a kernel trigger that freeze the cgroup when the
> task limit is reached?

Yeah, something like that. I'm not really sure about how it would
actually work tho.

> What about rather implementing register_event() for the tasks.usage such
> that the user can be notified using eventfd when the limit is reached.
> Then it would be up to the user to decide to freeze or any other thing.
> Sounds like a more generic solution.

Maybe, the problem would be how to ensure that the userland manager
can respond fast enough (whatever that means...).



 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-13 21:51    [W:0.124 / U:2.424 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site