Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Prcoess in multiple control groupsPrcoess in multiple control groupsPosted Mar 15, 2012 12:20 UTC (Thu) by slashdot (guest, #22014)Parent article: A proposed plan for control groups
What about allowing a process to be a member of multiple cgroups?
This would allow to have a single hierarchy, but still support orthogonal hierarchies as normal children of it.
Each process would be allocated resources according to the sum of the allowances coming from all its cgroup memberships.
(Log in to post comments)
Prcoess in multiple control groups Posted Mar 22, 2012 9:41 UTC (Thu) by kevinm (guest, #69913) [Link]
It's not that simple.
Consider if a process was a member of two control groups, one of which has a memory limit of 200MB and one of which has a memory limit of 1G. To which control group should that process's memory be accounted? Half each? In proportion to the memory limits? In proportion to the number of processes in each? Something else?
What happens if one of the two control groups is at its limit, but the other is not - is the process prevented from allocating more memory? If not, how does its memory allocated get accounted now?
It looks like a nightmare.
Prcoess in multiple control groups Posted Mar 22, 2012 10:14 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Adding a process to another group should not add to its limits. The limit should always be the most restrictive of all groups. This is simple and predictable, while the alternative becomes complex very quickly.
|
|||||||||||||