Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Implement interface for cgroup unified hierarchy

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Tue Aug 25 2015 - 06:01:14 EST

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:24:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paul Turner <pjt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Anyways, a point here is that threads of the same process competing
> > > isn't a new problem. There are many ways to make those threads play
> > > nice as the application itself often has to be involved anyway,
> > > especially for something like qemu which is heavily involved in
> > > provisioning resources.
> >
> > It's certainly not a new problem, but it's a real one, and it's
> > _hard_. You're proposing removing the best known solution.
> Also, just to make sure this is resolved properly, I'm NAK-ing the current
> scheduler bits in this series:
> NAKed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> until all of pjt's API design concerns are resolved. This is conceptual, it is not
> a 'we can fix it later' detail.
> Tejun, please keep me Cc:-ed to future versions of this series so that I can lift
> the NAK if things get resolved.

You can add:

NAKed-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

to that.

There have been at least 3 different groups of people:

- Mike, representing Suse customers
- Kamezawa-san, representing Fujitsu customers
- Paul, representing Google

that claim per-thread control groups are in use and important.

Any replacement _must_ provide for this use case up front; its not
something that can be cobbled on later.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at