Re: [RFC PATCH v5 20/29] sched/deadline: Allow deeper hierarchies of RT cgroups

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 11:29:47AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
...
> While I like the automatic approach, I also fear that it might be more
> difficult to maintain/use from a systemd admin perspective, e.g. I
> cannot make a subgroup reservation bigger because there are threads
> running in the parent group which consume all the remaining (internal)
> bandwidth. If we make it explicit it seems easier to see where bandwidth
> is allocated at all levels.
> 
> Peter? Tejun? What do we want to do with this interface?

blkcg on cgroup1 did soemthing similar for a while. It had a separate subdir
for knobs that apply to "internal threads". Effectivley, this becomes
creating a separate controller group for every cgroup as a sibling to its
children. It does work obviously but it is pretty ugly and unintuitive, both
in interface and implementation, and I'm skeptical this was actually useful
in any meaningful way. Nobody complained when we ripped it out.

If rt were to become its own cgroup controller, maybe one can just side-step
this by not supporting threaded mode at least at the beginning. If people
ask for it, hopefully we'll be able to develop better understanding of their
usecases and drive design that way. In practice, I don't think threaded mode
gets used all that much because usually only application processes
themselves know about their own threads, are not in the business of creating
their own cgroups (delegation to each application isn't common), and have
other ways of controlling their own threads. So, there's some chance that
this may not actually come up.

If rt stays as a part of cpu controller, my preference would be keeping the
config implicit for threaded mode at least at the beginning. ie. Don't get
in the way of people using threaded mode by blocking it but having some
reasonable and clear default (e.g. internal tasks have priority as suggested
or internal tasks get whatever is left over which may make more sense in the
allocation model) may be sufficient. If not, like in the other case, we can
make specific design decisions based on concrete use cases later.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun