Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2
From: Andy Lutomirski <hidden>
Date: 2016-09-16 15:13:31
Also in:
linux-api, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-10-05 · Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2 · Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
- 2016-10-04 · Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2 · Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
- 2016-09-30 · Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2 · Mike Galbraith <hidden>
- 2016-09-30 · Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2 · Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
- 2016-09-19 · Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2 · Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
On Sep 16, 2016 12:51 AM, "Peter Zijlstra" [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:08:07PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:quoted
BTW, Mike keeps mentioning exclusive cgroups as problematic with the no-internal-tasks constraints. Do exclusive cgroups still exist in cgroup2? Could we perhaps just remove that capability entirely? I've never understood what problem exlusive cpusets and such solve that can't be more comprehensibly solved by just assigning the cpusets the normal inclusive way.Without exclusive sets we cannot split the sched_domain structure. Which leads to not being able to actually partition things. That would break DL for one.
Can you sketch out a toy example? And what's DL?