From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1756907AbcH2Wfc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 29 Aug 2016 18:35:32 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f68.google.com ([209.85.220.68]:34087 "EHLO
        mail-pa0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1756564AbcH2Wfa (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 29 Aug 2016 18:35:30 -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 18:35:26 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team@fb.com,
        "open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Documentation] State of CPU controller in cgroup v2
Message-ID: <20160829223526.GI28713@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20160805170752.GK2542@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <CALCETrXvLNeds+ugZ8j3eD1Zg1RZYJSAET3Kguz5G2vqSLFCwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1471757654.2354.97.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1471757654.2354.97.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello, James.

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:34:14PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> I can see that process based is conceptually easier in v2 because you
> begin with a process tree, but it would really be a pity to lose the
> thread based controls we have now and permanently lose the ability to
> create more as we find uses for them.  I can't really see how improving
> "common resource domain" is a good tradeoff for this.

Thread based control for namespace is not a different problem from
thread based control for individual applications, right?  And the
problems with using cgroupfs directly for in-process control still
applies the same whether it's system-wide or inside a namespace.

One argument could be that inside a namespace, as the cgroupfs is
already scoped, cgroup path headaches are less of an issue, which is
true; however, that isn't applicable to applications which aren't
scoped in thier own namespaces and we can't scope every binary on the
system.  More importnatly, a given application can't rely on being
scoped in a certain way.  You can craft a custom config for a specific
setup but that's a horrible way to solve the problem of in-application
hierarchical resource distribution, and that's what rgroup was all
about.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun