Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:00:54 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Implement interface for cgroup unified hierarchy |
| |
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:24:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Paul Turner <pjt@google.com> wrote: > > > > Anyways, a point here is that threads of the same process competing > > > isn't a new problem. There are many ways to make those threads play > > > nice as the application itself often has to be involved anyway, > > > especially for something like qemu which is heavily involved in > > > provisioning resources. > > > > It's certainly not a new problem, but it's a real one, and it's > > _hard_. You're proposing removing the best known solution. > > Also, just to make sure this is resolved properly, I'm NAK-ing the current > scheduler bits in this series: > > NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > > until all of pjt's API design concerns are resolved. This is conceptual, it is not > a 'we can fix it later' detail. > > Tejun, please keep me Cc:-ed to future versions of this series so that I can lift > the NAK if things get resolved.
You can add:
NAKed-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
to that.
There have been at least 3 different groups of people:
- Mike, representing Suse customers - Kamezawa-san, representing Fujitsu customers - Paul, representing Google
that claim per-thread control groups are in use and important.
Any replacement _must_ provide for this use case up front; its not something that can be cobbled on later.
| |