Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933699Ab0KQPCS (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:02:18 -0500 Received: from tango.0pointer.de ([85.214.72.216]:35544 "EHLO tango.0pointer.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757034Ab0KQPCR (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:02:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:01:56 +0100 From: Lennart Poettering To: Vivek Goyal Cc: "Ted Ts'o" , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Dhaval Giani , Peter Zijlstra , Mike Galbraith , Oleg Nesterov , Markus Trippelsdorf , Mathieu Desnoyers , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups Message-ID: <20101117150156.GA17082@tango.0pointer.de> References: <20101116181603.GC19327@tango.0pointer.de> <20101116202839.GC27235@tango.0pointer.de> <20101116205243.64e4a67a@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20101116211909.GB16589@tango.0pointer.de> <20101116233934.GC1568@thunk.org> <20101117002159.GA3184@tango.0pointer.de> <20101117020626.GB3290@thunk.org> <20101117145712.GA29892@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101117145712.GA29892@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Campaign-1: () ASCII Ribbon Campaign X-Campaign-2: / Against HTML Email & vCards - Against Microsoft Attachments User-Agent: Leviathan/19.8.0 [zh] (Cray 3; I; Solaris 4.711; Console) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1652 Lines: 37 On Wed, 17.11.10 09:57, Vivek Goyal (vgoyal@redhat.com) wrote: > Being able to specify cgroup name/path is a good idea. That way one can > make use of cgroup hierarchy also. > > Thinking more about opt-in vs opt-out issue. Generally cgroups provide > some kind of isolation between application groups and in the process > can be somewhat expensive. More memory allocation, more accounting overhead > and for CFQ block controller it can also mean additional idling and can result > in overall reduced throughput. > > Keeping that in mind, is it really a good idea to launch each application > in a separate group. Will it be better to let user decide if the > application should be launched in a separate cgroup? > > The flip side is that how many people will really know about the functionality > and will really launch application in a separate group. And may be it is > a good idea to put everybody in a seprate cgroup by default even it means > some cost so that if a application starts consuming too much of resources > (make -j64), then its impact on rest of the groups can be contained. > > I really don't have strong inclination for one over other. Just thinking > loud... I wouldn't be too concerned here. It's not that we end up with 1000s of groups here. It's way < 40 or in the end, for a single user machine. Which I think isn't that bad. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/