Re: [RFC] cgroup TODOs

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Vivek.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 03:28:40PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Hmm.., In that case how libvirt will make use of blkio in the proposed
> scheme. We can't disable blkio nesting at "system" level. So We will
> have to disable it at each service level  except "libvirtd" so that
> libvirt can use blkio for its virtual machines.
> 
> That means blkio will see each service in a cgroup of its own and if 
> that does not make sense by default, its a problem. In the existing

Yeap, if libvirtd wants use blkcg, blkcg will be enabled upto
libvirtd's root.  It might not be optimal but I think it makes sense.
If you want to excercise hierarchical control on a resource, the only
sane way is sticking to the hierarchy until it reaches root.

> scheme, atleast every service does not show up in its cgroup from
> blkio point of view. Everthig is in root and libvirt can create its
> own cgroups, keeping number of cgroups small.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  I don't think this is a
behavior we can keep for the sake of "but if we do this ass-weird
thing, we can bypass the overhead for XYZ" when it breaks so many
fundamental things.

I think there currently is too much (broken) flexibility and intent to
remove it.  That doesn't mean that removeing all flexibility is the
right direction.  It inherently is a balancing act and I think the
proposed solution is a reasonable tradeoff.  There's important
difference between causing full overhead by default for all users and
requiring some overhead when the use case at hand calls for the
functionality.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/