From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752353AbdFUVjJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:39:09 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f182.google.com ([209.85.161.182]:36205 "EHLO mail-yw0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751994AbdFUVjH (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:39:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 17:39:05 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Waiman Long Cc: Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, pjt@google.com, luto@amacapital.net, efault@gmx.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-cgroup 1/6] cgroup: Relax the no internal process constraint Message-ID: <20170621213905.GD14720@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1497452737-11125-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <1497452737-11125-2-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <20170621204050.GA14720@htj.duckdns.org> <0c752151-f4aa-cda0-ba36-77cdc7dc25c6@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0c752151-f4aa-cda0-ba36-77cdc7dc25c6@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 05:37:00PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > What happens when we add domain handling to CPU so that it is both a > > domain and resource controller? Even if that somehow can be resolved, > > wouldn't that come with a rather surprising userland behavior changes? > > Also, I'm not sure what we're achieving by doing this. It doesn't > > really relax the restriction. It just turns it off implicitly when > > certain conditions are met, which doesn't really allow any real > > capabilities and at least to me the behaviors feel more subtle and > > complicated than before. > > I think CPU isn't a good example for that. Can you please elaborate? > Another alternative is to treat no internal process as a controller > attribute. Then we don't need to worry about this intricate question and > let the controllers decide if they will allow internal processes. Isn't that what "threaded" is? Thanks. -- tejun