[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:0.024 / U:0.412 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site