On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:10 AM Joel Fernandes <[email protected]> wrote: > [..] > > What do you think about having a separate cgroup for coresched? > > Both coresched cgroup and prctl() could co-exist where prctl could > > be used to isolate individual process or task and coresched cgroup > > to group trusted processes. > > This sounds like a fine idea to me. I wonder how Tejun and Peter feel about > having a new attribute-less CGroup controller for core-scheduling and just > use that for tagging. (No need to even have a tag file, just adding/removing > to/from CGroup will tag).
Unless there are any major objections to this idea, or better ideas for CGroup users, we will consider proposing a new CGroup controller for this. The issue with CPU controller CGroups being they may be configured in a way that is incompatible with tagging. And I was also thinking of a new clone flag CLONE_CORE (which allows a child to share a parent's core). This is because the fork-semantics are not clear and it may be better to leave the behavior of fork to userspace IMHO than hard-coding policy in the kernel. Perhaps we can also discuss this at the scheduler MC at Plumbers. Any other thoughts? - Joel
