[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups
On Wed, 17.11.10 09:57, Vivek Goyal ( 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 Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-17 16:05    [W:0.217 / U:20.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site