From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4.15-rc9] sched, cgroup: Don't reject lower cpu.max on ancestors
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 17:49:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180201164942.GC2249@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180130145639.GD1121507@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 06:56:39AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:21:56AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > afaiu the existing code does exactly the opposite, it forces the
> > descendants to configure less than the parent allows.
> >
> > You're taking out an error condition and silently allowing descentant
> > misconfiguration. How does that make sense?
>
> Well, they're upper limits, not strict allocations. The current
> behavior implemented by cpu isn't either a strict allocation or upper
> limits. It disallows a child from having a value higher than the
> parent (allocation-ish) but the sum of the children is allowed to
> exceed the parent's (limit-ish).
True; but its still weird to have the parent 'promise' something and
then retract that 'promise' later.
> The combination is rather arbitrary and makes it impossible to
> delegate safely (a delegatee can block the delegator from reducing the
> amount resource allocated to the delegatee) while not really
> protecting against overcommit from descendants either.
>
> We had this sort of input validations in different controllers all in
> their own ways. In most cases, these aren't well thought out and we
> can't support things like delegation without aligning controller
> behaviors.
I suppose..
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-01 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-22 19:26 Tejun Heo
2018-01-29 19:15 ` Tejun Heo
2018-01-30 10:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-01-30 14:56 ` Tejun Heo
2018-02-01 16:49 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-02-01 19:57 ` Tejun Heo
2018-02-12 17:24 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180201164942.GC2249@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome