Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 21:35:07 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        "Hyser,Chris" <chris.hyser@oracle.com>,
        Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Glexiner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces
Message-ID: <YHuMy0o7gRd+kIVN@google.com>
References: <20210401131012.395311786@infradead.org>
 <YGpOF6f0YcMkWy1u@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <CAEXW_YSS0ex8xK7t2R7c1jiE4eNbwxdwP2uyGPDK78YAaYQr5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YGxtLOxCb4LO8kN0@slm.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YGxtLOxCb4LO8kN0@slm.duckdns.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 10:16:12AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 02:46:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Yeah, its at http://lore.kernel.org/r/20200822030155.GA414063@google.com
> > as mentioned above, let me know if you need any more details about
> > usecase.
> 
> Except for the unspecified reason in usecase 4, I don't see why cgroup is in
> the picture at all. This doesn't really have much to do with hierarchical
> resource distribution. Besides, yes, you can use cgroup for logical
> structuring and identificaiton purposes but in those cases the interactions
> and interface should be with the original subsystem while using cgroup IDs
> or paths as parameters - see tracing and bpf for examples.

Personally for ChromeOS, we need only the per-task interface. Considering
that the second argument of this prctl is a command, I don't see why we
cannot add a new command PR_SCHED_CORE_CGROUP_SHARE to do what Tejun is
saying (in the future).

In order to not block ChromeOS and other "per-task interface" usecases, I
suggest we keep the CGroup interface for a later time (whether that's
through prctl or the CGroups FS way which Tejun dislikes) and move forward
with per-task interface only initially.

Peter, any thoughts on this?

thanks,

- Joel