On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog <umut.tezdu...@axis.com> wrote: > On Nov 24, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Kay Sievers <k...@vrfy.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Umut Tezduyar Lindskog >> <umut.tezdu...@axis.com> wrote: >>> How do we support thread level resource management with the new cgroup >>> abstraction? > How do we do it in the process level then. Lets say a service has 5 processes > under and 1 of them needs to be in a different slice. Any example? >>> >>> Can we use scopes with task ids of threads? If so, what is the API to put >>> the task id into its own scope unit? >> >> There is no plan at the moment to support thread-granular resource >> settings. The feature is expected to be removed from the kernel too, >> when we switch to the unified cgroup hierarchy. > Any plans to support existing applications that are making use of thread > level resource management?
No, the current idea is that there will be no replacement. > If not, what are we left with then, posix thread priorities? Something else than cgroups, yes. Thread prios could work if it fits the way your tool works. And there are some ideas of adding new interfaces to /proc/$PID/, to provide these thread-level knobs. We will see when we get there. Only one thing seems clear, threads are to be managed by the process, not by cgroups. > Is there an announcement of dropping thread level resource management support > from kernel somewhere? Nothing official, there are just discussions about the "unified hierarchy". Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
