Re: [ISSUE] sched/cgroup: Does cpu-cgroup still works fine nowadays?

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:23:11AM +0800, Michael wang wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 07:57 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> It's like:
> >>
> >> 	/cgroup/cpu/l1/l2/l3/l4/l5/l6/A
> >>
> >> about level 7, the issue can not be solved any more.
> > 
> > That's pretty retarded and yeah, that's way past the point where things
> > make sense. You might be lucky and have l1-5 as empty/pointless
> > hierarchy so the effective depth is less and then things will work, but
> > *shees*..
> 
> Exactly, that's the simulation of cgroup topology setup by libvirt,
> really doesn't make sense... rather torture than deployment, but they do
> make things like that...

I'm calling it broken and unfit for purpose if it does crazy shit like
that.

There's really not much we can do to fix it either, barring softfloat in
the load-balancer and I'm sure everybody but virt wankers will complain
about _that_.

Attachment: pgp5W67P88ZxD.pgp
Description: PGP signature