Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:35:09 +0400 | From | Glauber Costa <> | Subject | Re: How to draw values for /proc/stat |
| |
On 12/12/2011 01:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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?
Well, it is something in this direction. I don't think it's entirely clear what exactly it will look like, but it seems we're making progress.
| |