Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:36:11 -0400 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v3 1/5] sched/core: add capacity constraints to CPU controller |
| |
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:15:11PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > a) are tunable at all hierarchy levels, i.e. root group too > > This usually is problematic because there should be a non-cgroup way > of configuring the feature in case cgroup isn't configured or used, > and it becomes awkward to have two separate mechanisms configuring the > same thing. Maybe the feature is cgroup specific enough that it makes > sense here but this needs more explanation / justification.
A related issue here is that what the non-cgroup interface and its interaction with cgroup should be. In the long term, I think it's better to have a generic non-cgroup interface for these new features, and we've gotten it wrong, or at least inconsistent, across different settings - most don't affect API accessible settings and just confine the configuration requested by the application inside the cgroup constraints; however, cpuset does it the other way and overwrites configurations set by individual applications.
If we agree that exposing this only through cgroup is fine, this isn't a concern, but, given that this is a thread property and can obviously be useful outside cgroups, that seems debatable at the very least.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |