Hello,
Unified hierarchy is finally out for review [1][2]. This patch adds
the documentation which describes the design and rationales. If you
can think of more people to cc, please go ahead.
If you have any comments and/or questions, please don't hesitate.
Thanks.
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/[email protected]
[2] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/[email protected]
------ 8< ------
>From 68eb841c53bb26a7b49f8f244ebd68f2530d8d0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:29:39 -0400
Unified hierarchy will be the new version of cgroup interface. This
patch adds Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt which describes
the design and rationales of unified hierarchy.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt | 359 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 359 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt b/Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..41386c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,359 @@
+
+Cgroup unified hierarchy
+
+April, 2014 Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
+
+This document describes the changes made by unified hierarchy and
+their rationales. It will eventually be merged into the main cgroup
+documentation.
+
+CONTENTS
+
+1. Background
+2. Basic Operation
+ 2-1. Mounting
+ 2-2. cgroup.subtree_control
+ 2-3. cgroup.controllers
+3. Structural Constraints
+ 3-1. Top-down
+ 3-2. No internal tasks
+4. Other Changes
+ 4-1. [Un]populated Notification
+ 4-2. Other Core Changes
+ 4-3. Per-Controller Changes
+ 4-3-1. blkio
+ 4-3-2. cpuset
+ 4-3-3. memory
+5. Planned Changes
+ 5-1. CAP for resource control
+
+
+1. Background
+
+cgroup allows arbitrary number of hierarchies and each hierarchy can
+host any number of controllers. While this seems to provide high
+level of flexibility, it isn't quite useful in practice.
+
+For example, as there is only one instance of each controller, utility
+type controllers such as freezer which can be useful in all
+hierarchies can only be used in one. The issue is exacerbated by the
+fact that controllers can't be moved around once hierarchies are
+populated. Another issue is that all controllers bound to a hierarchy
+are forced to have exactly the same view of the hierarchy. It isn't
+possible to vary the granularity depending on the specific controller.
+
+In practice, these issues heavily limit which controllers can be put
+on the same hierarchy and most configurations resort to putting each
+controller on its own hierarchy. Only closely related ones, such as
+cpu and cpuacct, make sense to put on the same hierarchy. This often
+means that userland ends up managing multiple similar hierarchies
+repeating the same steps on each hierarchy whenever a hierarchy
+management operation is necessary.
+
+Unfortunately, support for multiple hierarchies comes at a steep cost.
+Internal implementation in cgroup core proper is dazzlingly
+complicated but more importantly the support for multiple hierarchies
+restricts how cgroup is used in general and what controllers can do.
+
+There's no limit on how many hierarchies there may be, which means
+that a task's cgroup membership can't be described in finite length.
+The key may contain any varying number of entries and is unlimited in
+length, which makes it highly awkward to handle and leads to addition
+of controllers which exist only to identify membership, which in turn
+exacerbates the original problem.
+
+Also, as a controller can't have any expectation regarding what shape
+of hierarchies other controllers would be on, each controller has to
+assume that all other controllers are operating on completely
+orthogonal hierarchies. This makes it impossible, or at least very
+cumbersome, for controllers to cooperate with each other.
+
+In most use cases, putting controllers on hierarchies which are
+completely orthogonal to each other isn't necessary. What usually is
+called for is the ability to have differing levels of granularity
+depending on the specific controller. IOW, hierarchy may be collapsed
+from leaf towards root when viewed from specific controllers. For
+example, a given configuration might not care about how memory is
+distributed beyond certain level while still want to control how cpu
+cycles are distributed.
+
+Unified hierarchy is the next version of cgroup interface. It aims to
+address the aforementioned issues by having more structure while
+retaining enough flexibility for most use cases. Various other
+general and controller-specific interface issues are also addressed in
+the process.
+
+
+2. Basic Operation
+
+2-1. Mounting
+
+Currently, unified hierarchy can be mounted with the following mount
+command. Note that this is still under development and scheduled to
+change soon.
+
+ mount -t cgroup -o __DEVEL__sane_behavior cgroup $MOUNT_POINT
+
+All controllers which are not bound to other hierarchies are
+automatically bound to unified hierarchy and show up at the root of
+it. Controllers which are enabled only in the root of unified
+hierarchy can be bound to other hierarchies at any time. This allows
+mixing unified hierarchy with the traditional multiple hierarchies in
+fully backward compatible way.
+
+
+2-2. cgroup.subtree_control
+
+All cgroups on unified hierarchy have "cgroup.subtree_control" which
+governs which controllers are enabled on the children of the cgroup.
+Let's assume a hierarchy like the following.
+
+ root - A - B - C
+ \ D
+
+root's "cgroup.subtree_control" determines which controllers are
+enabled on A. A's on B. B's on C and D. This coincides with the
+fact that controllers on the immediate sub-level are used to
+distribute the resources of the parent. In fact, it's natural to
+assume that resource control knobs of a child belong to its parent.
+Enabling a controller in "cgroup.subtree_control" declares that
+distribution of the respective resources of the cgroup will be
+controlled. Note that this means that controller enable states are
+shared among siblings.
+
+When read, the file contains space-separated list of currently enabled
+controllers. A write to the file should contain spaced-separated list
+of controllers with '+' or '-' prefixed (without the quotes).
+Controllers prefixed with '+' are enabled and '-' disabled. If a
+controller is listed multiple times, the last entry wins. The
+specific operations are executed atomically - either all succeed or
+fail.
+
+
+2-3. cgroup.controllers
+
+Read-only "cgroup.controllers" contains space-separated list of
+controllers which can be enabled in the cgroup's
+"cgroup.subtree_control".
+
+In the root cgroup, this lists controllers which are not bound to
+other hierarchies and the content changes as controllers are bound to
+and unbound from other hierarchies.
+
+In non-root cgroups, the content of this file equals that of the
+parent's "cgroup.subtree_control" as only controllers enabled from the
+parent can be used in its children.
+
+
+3. Structural Constraints
+
+3-1. Top-down
+
+As it doesn't make sense to nest control of an uncontrolled resource,
+all non-root "cgroup.subtree_control" can only contain controllers
+which are enabled in the parent's "cgroup.subtree_control". A
+controller can be enabled only if the parent has the controller
+enabled and a controller can't be disabled if one or more children
+have it enabled.
+
+
+3-2. No internal tasks
+
+One long-standing issue that cgroup faces is the competition between
+tasks belonging to the parent cgroup and its children cgroups. This
+is inherently nasty as two different types of entities compete and
+there is no agreed-upon obvious way to handle it. Different
+controllers are doing different things.
+
+cpu considers tasks and cgroups as equivalents and maps nice level to
+cgroup weights. This works for some cases but falls flat when
+children should be allocated specific ratios of cpu cycles and the
+number of internal tasks fluctuates - the ratios constantly change as
+the number of competing entities fluctuates. There also are other
+issues. The mapping from nice level to weight isn't obvious or
+universal, and there are various other knobs which simply aren't
+available for tasks.
+
+blkio implicitly creates a hidden leaf node for each cgroup to host
+the tasks. The hidden leaf has its own copies of all the knobs with
+"leaf_" prefixed. While this allows equivalent control over internal
+tasks, it's with serious drawbacks. It always adds an extra layer of
+nesting which may not be necessary, makes the interface messy and
+significantly complicates the implementation.
+
+memory currently doesn't have a way to control what happens between
+internal tasks and child cgroups and the behavior is not clearly
+defined. There have been attempts to add ad-hoc behaviors and knobs
+to tailor the behavior to specific workloads. Continuing this
+direction will lead to problems which will be extremely difficult to
+resolve in the long term.
+
+Multiple controllers struggle with internal tasks and came up with
+different ways to deal with it; unfortunately, all the approaches in
+use now are severely flawed and, furthermore, the widely different
+behaviors make cgroup as whole highly inconsistent.
+
+It is clear that this is something which needs to be addressed from
+cgroup core proper in a uniform way so that controllers don't need to
+worry about it and cgroup as a whole shows a consistent and logical
+behavior. To achieve that, unified hierarchy enforces the following
+structural constraint.
+
+ Except for the root, only cgroups which don't contain any task may
+ have controllers enabled in "cgroup.subtree_control".
+
+Combined with other properties, this guarantees that, when a
+controller is looking at the part of the hierarchy which has it
+enabled, tasks are always only on the leaves. This rules out
+situations where child cgroups compete against internal tasks of the
+parent.
+
+There are two things to note. Firstly, the root cgroup is exempt from
+the restriction. Root contains tasks and anonymous resource
+consumption which can't be associated with any other cgroup and
+requires special treatment from most controllers. How resource
+consumption in the root cgroup is governed is upto each controller.
+
+Secondly, the restriction doesn't take effect if there is no enabled
+controller in the cgroup's "cgroup.subtree_control". This is
+important as otherwise it wouldn't be possible to create children of a
+populated cgroup. To control resource distribution of a cgroup, the
+cgroup must create children and transfer all its tasks to the children
+before enabling controllers in its "cgroup.subtree_control".
+
+
+4. Other Changes
+
+4-1. [Un]populated Notification
+
+cgroup users often need a way to determine when a cgroup's
+subhierarchy becomes empty so that it can be cleaned up. cgroup
+currently provides release_agent for it; unfortunately, this mechanism
+is riddled with issues.
+
+- It delivers events by forking and execing a userland binary
+ specified as the release_agent. This is a long deprecated method of
+ notification delivery. It's extremely heavy, slow and cumbersome to
+ integrate with larger infrastructure.
+
+- There is single monitoring point at the root. There's no way to
+ delegate management of subtree.
+
+- The event isn't recursive. It triggers when a cgroup doesn't have
+ any tasks or child cgroups. Events for internal nodes trigger only
+ after all children are removed. This again makes it impossible to
+ delegate management of subtree.
+
+- Events are filtered from the kernel side. "notify_on_release" file
+ is used to subscribe to or suppress release event. This is
+ unnecessarily complicated and probably done this way because event
+ delivery itself was expensive.
+
+Unified hierarchy implements interface file "cgroup.subtree_populated"
+which can be used to monitor whether the cgroup's subhierarchy has
+tasks in it or not. Its value is 0 if there is no task in the cgroup
+and its descendants; otherwise, 1. poll and [id]notify events are
+triggered when the value changes.
+
+This is significantly lighter and simpler and trivially allows
+delegating management of subhierarchy - subhierarchy monitoring can
+block further propagation simply by putting itself or another process
+in the root of the subhierarchy and monitor events that it's
+interested in from there without interfering with monitoring higher in
+the tree.
+
+In unified hierarchy, release_agent mechanism is no longer supported
+and the interface files "release_agent" and "notify_on_release" do not
+exist.
+
+
+4-2. Other Core Changes
+
+- None of the mount options is allowed.
+
+- remount is disallowed.
+
+- rename(2) is disallowed.
+
+- "tasks" is removed. Everything should at process granularity. Use
+ "cgroup.procs" instead.
+
+- "cgroup.procs" is not sorted. pids will be unique unless they got
+ recycled in-between reads.
+
+- "cgroup.clone_children" is removed.
+
+
+4-3. Per-Controller Changes
+
+4-3-1. blkio
+
+- blk-throttle becomes properly hierarchical.
+
+
+4-3-2. cpuset
+
+- Tasks are kept in empty cpusets after hotplug and take on the masks
+ of the nearest non-empty ancestor, instead of being moved to it.
+
+- A task can be moved into an empty cpuset, and again it takes on the
+ masks of the nearest non-empty ancestor.
+
+
+4-3-3. memory
+
+- use_hierarchy is on by default and the cgroup file for the flag is
+ not created.
+
+
+5. Planned Changes
+
+5-1. CAP for resource control
+
+Unified hierarchy will require one of the capabilities(7), which is
+yet to be decided, for all resource control related knobs. Process
+organization operations - creation of sub-cgroups and migration of
+processes in sub-hierarchies may be delegated by changing the
+ownership and/or permissions on the cgroup directory and
+"cgroup.procs" interface file; however, all operations which affect
+resource control - writes to "cgroup.subtree_control" or any
+controller-specific knobs - will require an explicit CAP privilege.
+
+This, in part, is to prevent cgroup interface from being inadvertently
+promoted to programmable API used by non-privileged binaries. cgroup
+exposes various aspects of the system in ways which aren't properly
+abstracted for direct consumption by regular programs. This is an
+administration interface much closer to sysctl knobs than system
+calls. Even the basic access model, being filesystem path based,
+isn't suitable for direct consumption. There's no way to access "my
+cgroup" in race-free way or make multiple operations atomic against
+migration to another cgroup.
+
+Another aspect is that, for better or for worse, cgroup interface goes
+through far less scrutiny than regular interfaces for unprivileged
+userland. The upside is that cgroup is able to expose useful features
+which may not be suitable for general consumption in reasonable time
+frame. It provides a relatively short path between internal details
+and userland-visible interface. Of course, this shortcut comes with
+high risk. We go through what we go through for general kernel APIs
+for good reasons. It may end up leaking internal details in a way
+which can exert significant pain by locking the kernel into a contract
+that can't be maintained in a reasonable manner.
+
+Also, due to the specific nature, cgroup and its controllers don't
+tend to attract attention from wide-scope of developers. cgroup's
+short history is already fraught with severely mis-designed
+interfaces, unnecessary commitment to and exposing of internal
+details, broken and dangerous implementations of various features.
+
+Keeping cgroup as an administration interface is both advantageous for
+its role and an imperative given its nature. Some of the cgroup
+features may make sense for unprivileged access. If deemed justified,
+those must be further abstracted and implemented as a different
+interface, be it a system call or process-private filesystem, and
+survive through the scrutiny that any interface for general
+consumption is required to go through.
+
+Requiring CAP is not a complete solution but should serve as a
+significant deterrent against spraying cgroup usages in non-privileged
+programs.
--
1.9.0
On 04/14/2014 03:09 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Unified hierarchy is finally out for review [1][2]. This patch adds
> the documentation which describes the design and rationales. If you
> can think of more people to cc, please go ahead.
>
> If you have any comments and/or questions, please don't hesitate.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/[email protected]
> [2] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/[email protected]
>
> ------ 8< ------
> From 68eb841c53bb26a7b49f8f244ebd68f2530d8d0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:29:39 -0400
>
> Unified hierarchy will be the new version of cgroup interface. This
> patch adds Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt which describes
> the design and rationales of unified hierarchy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt | 359 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 359 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt b/Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..41386c3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,359 @@
> +
> +Cgroup unified hierarchy
> +
> +April, 2014 Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
> +
> +This document describes the changes made by unified hierarchy and
> +their rationales. It will eventually be merged into the main cgroup
> +documentation.
> +
> +CONTENTS
> +
> +1. Background
> +2. Basic Operation
> + 2-1. Mounting
> + 2-2. cgroup.subtree_control
> + 2-3. cgroup.controllers
> +3. Structural Constraints
> + 3-1. Top-down
> + 3-2. No internal tasks
> +4. Other Changes
> + 4-1. [Un]populated Notification
> + 4-2. Other Core Changes
> + 4-3. Per-Controller Changes
> + 4-3-1. blkio
> + 4-3-2. cpuset
> + 4-3-3. memory
> +5. Planned Changes
> + 5-1. CAP for resource control
> +
> +
> +1. Background
> +
> +cgroup allows arbitrary number of hierarchies and each hierarchy can
allows an arbitrary
> +host any number of controllers. While this seems to provide high
provide a high
> +level of flexibility, it isn't quite useful in practice.
> +
> +For example, as there is only one instance of each controller, utility
> +type controllers such as freezer which can be useful in all
> +hierarchies can only be used in one. The issue is exacerbated by the
> +fact that controllers can't be moved around once hierarchies are
> +populated. Another issue is that all controllers bound to a hierarchy
> +are forced to have exactly the same view of the hierarchy. It isn't
> +possible to vary the granularity depending on the specific controller.
> +
> +In practice, these issues heavily limit which controllers can be put
> +on the same hierarchy and most configurations resort to putting each
> +controller on its own hierarchy. Only closely related ones, such as
> +cpu and cpuacct, make sense to put on the same hierarchy. This often
> +means that userland ends up managing multiple similar hierarchies
> +repeating the same steps on each hierarchy whenever a hierarchy
> +management operation is necessary.
> +
> +Unfortunately, support for multiple hierarchies comes at a steep cost.
> +Internal implementation in cgroup core proper is dazzlingly
> +complicated but more importantly the support for multiple hierarchies
> +restricts how cgroup is used in general and what controllers can do.
> +
> +There's no limit on how many hierarchies there may be, which means
> +that a task's cgroup membership can't be described in finite length.
> +The key may contain any varying number of entries and is unlimited in
> +length, which makes it highly awkward to handle and leads to addition
> +of controllers which exist only to identify membership, which in turn
> +exacerbates the original problem.
> +
> +Also, as a controller can't have any expectation regarding what shape
> +of hierarchies other controllers would be on, each controller has to
> +assume that all other controllers are operating on completely
> +orthogonal hierarchies. This makes it impossible, or at least very
> +cumbersome, for controllers to cooperate with each other.
> +
> +In most use cases, putting controllers on hierarchies which are
> +completely orthogonal to each other isn't necessary. What usually is
> +called for is the ability to have differing levels of granularity
> +depending on the specific controller. IOW, hierarchy may be collapsed
please spell out IOW
> +from leaf towards root when viewed from specific controllers. For
> +example, a given configuration might not care about how memory is
> +distributed beyond certain level while still want to control how cpu
beyond a certain level while still wanting to control
I would prefer to see CPU instead of cpu (except when it refers to a
task or function).
> +cycles are distributed.
> +
> +Unified hierarchy is the next version of cgroup interface. It aims to
of the cgroup interface.
> +address the aforementioned issues by having more structure while
> +retaining enough flexibility for most use cases. Various other
> +general and controller-specific interface issues are also addressed in
> +the process.
> +
> +
> +2. Basic Operation
> +
> +2-1. Mounting
> +
> +Currently, unified hierarchy can be mounted with the following mount
> +command. Note that this is still under development and scheduled to
> +change soon.
> +
> + mount -t cgroup -o __DEVEL__sane_behavior cgroup $MOUNT_POINT
> +
> +All controllers which are not bound to other hierarchies are
> +automatically bound to unified hierarchy and show up at the root of
> +it. Controllers which are enabled only in the root of unified
> +hierarchy can be bound to other hierarchies at any time. This allows
> +mixing unified hierarchy with the traditional multiple hierarchies in
> +fully backward compatible way.
a fully backward
> +
> +
> +2-2. cgroup.subtree_control
> +
> +All cgroups on unified hierarchy have "cgroup.subtree_control" which
> +governs which controllers are enabled on the children of the cgroup.
> +Let's assume a hierarchy like the following.
> +
> + root - A - B - C
> + \ D
> +
> +root's "cgroup.subtree_control" determines which controllers are
> +enabled on A. A's on B. B's on C and D. This coincides with the
> +fact that controllers on the immediate sub-level are used to
> +distribute the resources of the parent. In fact, it's natural to
> +assume that resource control knobs of a child belong to its parent.
> +Enabling a controller in "cgroup.subtree_control" declares that
> +distribution of the respective resources of the cgroup will be
> +controlled. Note that this means that controller enable states are
> +shared among siblings.
> +
> +When read, the file contains space-separated list of currently enabled
contains a space-separated
> +controllers. A write to the file should contain spaced-separated list
contain a space-separated
> +of controllers with '+' or '-' prefixed (without the quotes).
> +Controllers prefixed with '+' are enabled and '-' disabled. If a
> +controller is listed multiple times, the last entry wins. The
> +specific operations are executed atomically - either all succeed or
> +fail.
> +
> +
> +2-3. cgroup.controllers
> +
> +Read-only "cgroup.controllers" contains space-separated list of
contains a space-separated
> +controllers which can be enabled in the cgroup's
> +"cgroup.subtree_control".
> +
> +In the root cgroup, this lists controllers which are not bound to
> +other hierarchies and the content changes as controllers are bound to
> +and unbound from other hierarchies.
> +
> +In non-root cgroups, the content of this file equals that of the
> +parent's "cgroup.subtree_control" as only controllers enabled from the
> +parent can be used in its children.
> +
> +
> +3. Structural Constraints
> +
> +3-1. Top-down
> +
> +As it doesn't make sense to nest control of an uncontrolled resource,
> +all non-root "cgroup.subtree_control" can only contain controllers
> +which are enabled in the parent's "cgroup.subtree_control". A
> +controller can be enabled only if the parent has the controller
> +enabled and a controller can't be disabled if one or more children
> +have it enabled.
> +
> +
> +3-2. No internal tasks
> +
> +One long-standing issue that cgroup faces is the competition between
> +tasks belonging to the parent cgroup and its children cgroups. This
> +is inherently nasty as two different types of entities compete and
> +there is no agreed-upon obvious way to handle it. Different
> +controllers are doing different things.
> +
> +cpu considers tasks and cgroups as equivalents and maps nice level to
> +cgroup weights. This works for some cases but falls flat when
> +children should be allocated specific ratios of cpu cycles and the
> +number of internal tasks fluctuates - the ratios constantly change as
> +the number of competing entities fluctuates. There also are other
> +issues. The mapping from nice level to weight isn't obvious or
> +universal, and there are various other knobs which simply aren't
> +available for tasks.
> +
> +blkio implicitly creates a hidden leaf node for each cgroup to host
> +the tasks. The hidden leaf has its own copies of all the knobs with
> +"leaf_" prefixed. While this allows equivalent control over internal
> +tasks, it's with serious drawbacks. It always adds an extra layer of
> +nesting which may not be necessary, makes the interface messy and
> +significantly complicates the implementation.
> +
> +memory currently doesn't have a way to control what happens between
> +internal tasks and child cgroups and the behavior is not clearly
> +defined. There have been attempts to add ad-hoc behaviors and knobs
> +to tailor the behavior to specific workloads. Continuing this
> +direction will lead to problems which will be extremely difficult to
> +resolve in the long term.
> +
> +Multiple controllers struggle with internal tasks and came up with
> +different ways to deal with it; unfortunately, all the approaches in
> +use now are severely flawed and, furthermore, the widely different
> +behaviors make cgroup as whole highly inconsistent.
> +
> +It is clear that this is something which needs to be addressed from
> +cgroup core proper in a uniform way so that controllers don't need to
> +worry about it and cgroup as a whole shows a consistent and logical
> +behavior. To achieve that, unified hierarchy enforces the following
> +structural constraint.
structural constraint:
> +
> + Except for the root, only cgroups which don't contain any task may
> + have controllers enabled in "cgroup.subtree_control".
> +
> +Combined with other properties, this guarantees that, when a
> +controller is looking at the part of the hierarchy which has it
> +enabled, tasks are always only on the leaves. This rules out
> +situations where child cgroups compete against internal tasks of the
> +parent.
> +
> +There are two things to note. Firstly, the root cgroup is exempt from
> +the restriction. Root contains tasks and anonymous resource
> +consumption which can't be associated with any other cgroup and
> +requires special treatment from most controllers. How resource
> +consumption in the root cgroup is governed is upto each controller.
up to
> +
> +Secondly, the restriction doesn't take effect if there is no enabled
> +controller in the cgroup's "cgroup.subtree_control". This is
> +important as otherwise it wouldn't be possible to create children of a
> +populated cgroup. To control resource distribution of a cgroup, the
> +cgroup must create children and transfer all its tasks to the children
> +before enabling controllers in its "cgroup.subtree_control".
> +
> +
> +4. Other Changes
> +
> +4-1. [Un]populated Notification
> +
> +cgroup users often need a way to determine when a cgroup's
> +subhierarchy becomes empty so that it can be cleaned up. cgroup
> +currently provides release_agent for it; unfortunately, this mechanism
> +is riddled with issues.
> +
> +- It delivers events by forking and execing a userland binary
> + specified as the release_agent. This is a long deprecated method of
> + notification delivery. It's extremely heavy, slow and cumbersome to
> + integrate with larger infrastructure.
> +
> +- There is single monitoring point at the root. There's no way to
> + delegate management of subtree.
"of subtree" seems incomplete...
At a minimum it should be "of a subtree."
> +
> +- The event isn't recursive. It triggers when a cgroup doesn't have
> + any tasks or child cgroups. Events for internal nodes trigger only
> + after all children are removed. This again makes it impossible to
> + delegate management of subtree.
of a subtree.
> +
> +- Events are filtered from the kernel side. "notify_on_release" file
A "notify_on_release" file
> + is used to subscribe to or suppress release event. This is
release events.
> + unnecessarily complicated and probably done this way because event
> + delivery itself was expensive.
> +
> +Unified hierarchy implements interface file "cgroup.subtree_populated"
implements an interface file
> +which can be used to monitor whether the cgroup's subhierarchy has
> +tasks in it or not. Its value is 0 if there is no task in the cgroup
> +and its descendants; otherwise, 1. poll and [id]notify events are
> +triggered when the value changes.
> +
> +This is significantly lighter and simpler and trivially allows
> +delegating management of subhierarchy - subhierarchy monitoring can
> +block further propagation simply by putting itself or another process
> +in the root of the subhierarchy and monitor events that it's
> +interested in from there without interfering with monitoring higher in
> +the tree.
> +
> +In unified hierarchy, release_agent mechanism is no longer supported
the release_agent mechanism
> +and the interface files "release_agent" and "notify_on_release" do not
> +exist.
> +
> +
> +4-2. Other Core Changes
> +
> +- None of the mount options is allowed.
> +
> +- remount is disallowed.
> +
> +- rename(2) is disallowed.
> +
> +- "tasks" is removed. Everything should at process granularity. Use
> + "cgroup.procs" instead.
> +
> +- "cgroup.procs" is not sorted. pids will be unique unless they got
> + recycled in-between reads.
> +
> +- "cgroup.clone_children" is removed.
> +
> +
> +4-3. Per-Controller Changes
> +
> +4-3-1. blkio
> +
> +- blk-throttle becomes properly hierarchical.
> +
> +
> +4-3-2. cpuset
> +
> +- Tasks are kept in empty cpusets after hotplug and take on the masks
> + of the nearest non-empty ancestor, instead of being moved to it.
> +
> +- A task can be moved into an empty cpuset, and again it takes on the
> + masks of the nearest non-empty ancestor.
> +
> +
> +4-3-3. memory
> +
> +- use_hierarchy is on by default and the cgroup file for the flag is
> + not created.
> +
> +
> +5. Planned Changes
> +
> +5-1. CAP for resource control
> +
> +Unified hierarchy will require one of the capabilities(7), which is
> +yet to be decided, for all resource control related knobs. Process
> +organization operations - creation of sub-cgroups and migration of
> +processes in sub-hierarchies may be delegated by changing the
> +ownership and/or permissions on the cgroup directory and
> +"cgroup.procs" interface file; however, all operations which affect
> +resource control - writes to "cgroup.subtree_control" or any
> +controller-specific knobs - will require an explicit CAP privilege.
> +
> +This, in part, is to prevent cgroup interface from being inadvertently
prevent the cgroup interface
> +promoted to programmable API used by non-privileged binaries. cgroup
> +exposes various aspects of the system in ways which aren't properly
> +abstracted for direct consumption by regular programs. This is an
> +administration interface much closer to sysctl knobs than system
> +calls. Even the basic access model, being filesystem path based,
> +isn't suitable for direct consumption. There's no way to access "my
> +cgroup" in race-free way or make multiple operations atomic against
in a race-free way
> +migration to another cgroup.
> +
> +Another aspect is that, for better or for worse, cgroup interface goes
the cgroup interface goes
> +through far less scrutiny than regular interfaces for unprivileged
> +userland. The upside is that cgroup is able to expose useful features
> +which may not be suitable for general consumption in reasonable time
in a reasonable time
> +frame. It provides a relatively short path between internal details
> +and userland-visible interface. Of course, this shortcut comes with
> +high risk. We go through what we go through for general kernel APIs
> +for good reasons. It may end up leaking internal details in a way
> +which can exert significant pain by locking the kernel into a contract
> +that can't be maintained in a reasonable manner.
so the cgroup interface is not stable and won't be?
> +
> +Also, due to the specific nature, cgroup and its controllers don't
> +tend to attract attention from wide-scope of developers. cgroup's
from a wide scope of developers.
> +short history is already fraught with severely mis-designed
> +interfaces, unnecessary commitment to and exposing of internal
> +details, broken and dangerous implementations of various features.
> +
> +Keeping cgroup as an administration interface is both advantageous for
> +its role and an imperative given its nature. Some of the cgroup
and imperative given
> +features may make sense for unprivileged access. If deemed justified,
> +those must be further abstracted and implemented as a different
> +interface, be it a system call or process-private filesystem, and
> +survive through the scrutiny that any interface for general
> +consumption is required to go through.
> +
> +Requiring CAP is not a complete solution but should serve as a
> +significant deterrent against spraying cgroup usages in non-privileged
> +programs.
>
Two comments that apply in multiple places:
a. Call cgroup's interface files "files". E.g.:
root's "cgroup.subtree_control" determines ...
becomes:
root's "cgroup.subtree_control" file determines
b. Call cgroup controllers "controllers" or "controller". E.g.:
memory currently doesn't have a way to control what happens between
becomes:
The memory controller currently doesn't have a way to control what happens between
--
~Randy
Hello,
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:36:29PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > +cgroup allows arbitrary number of hierarchies and each hierarchy can
>
> allows an arbitrary
>
> > +host any number of controllers. While this seems to provide high
>
> provide a high
Updated.
> > +depending on the specific controller. IOW, hierarchy may be collapsed
>
> please spell out IOW
Updated, but is this really necessary?
> > +from leaf towards root when viewed from specific controllers. For
> > +example, a given configuration might not care about how memory is
> > +distributed beyond certain level while still want to control how cpu
>
> beyond a certain level while still wanting to control
Updated.
> I would prefer to see CPU instead of cpu (except when it refers to a
> task or function).
cpu sometimes refer to the cpu controller. Will use CPU when it's
actually referring to the CPU.
> > +mixing unified hierarchy with the traditional multiple hierarchies in
> > +fully backward compatible way.
>
> a fully backward
Updated.
> > +
> > +When read, the file contains space-separated list of currently enabled
>
> contains a space-separated
Updated.
> > +controllers. A write to the file should contain spaced-separated list
>
> contain a space-separated
Updated.
> > +2-3. cgroup.controllers
> > +
> > +Read-only "cgroup.controllers" contains space-separated list of
>
> contains a space-separated
Updated.
> > +It is clear that this is something which needs to be addressed from
> > +cgroup core proper in a uniform way so that controllers don't need to
> > +worry about it and cgroup as a whole shows a consistent and logical
> > +behavior. To achieve that, unified hierarchy enforces the following
> > +structural constraint.
>
> structural constraint:
Updated.
> > +There are two things to note. Firstly, the root cgroup is exempt from
> > +the restriction. Root contains tasks and anonymous resource
> > +consumption which can't be associated with any other cgroup and
> > +requires special treatment from most controllers. How resource
> > +consumption in the root cgroup is governed is upto each controller.
>
> up to
Updated.
> > +- There is single monitoring point at the root. There's no way to
> > + delegate management of subtree.
>
> "of subtree" seems incomplete...
> At a minimum it should be "of a subtree."
Changed to "of a subtree".
> > +
> > +- The event isn't recursive. It triggers when a cgroup doesn't have
> > + any tasks or child cgroups. Events for internal nodes trigger only
> > + after all children are removed. This again makes it impossible to
> > + delegate management of subtree.
>
> of a subtree.
Ditto.
> > +
> > +- Events are filtered from the kernel side. "notify_on_release" file
>
> A "notify_on_release" file
>
> > + is used to subscribe to or suppress release event. This is
>
> release events.
Updated.
> > + unnecessarily complicated and probably done this way because event
> > + delivery itself was expensive.
> > +
> > +Unified hierarchy implements interface file "cgroup.subtree_populated"
>
> implements an interface file
Updated.
> > +In unified hierarchy, release_agent mechanism is no longer supported
>
> the release_agent mechanism
Updated.
> > +This, in part, is to prevent cgroup interface from being inadvertently
>
> prevent the cgroup interface
Updated.
> > +cgroup" in race-free way or make multiple operations atomic against
>
> in a race-free way
Updated.
> > +migration to another cgroup.
> > +
> > +Another aspect is that, for better or for worse, cgroup interface goes
>
> the cgroup interface goes
Updated.
> > +through far less scrutiny than regular interfaces for unprivileged
> > +userland. The upside is that cgroup is able to expose useful features
> > +which may not be suitable for general consumption in reasonable time
>
> in a reasonable time
Updated.
> > +frame. It provides a relatively short path between internal details
> > +and userland-visible interface. Of course, this shortcut comes with
> > +high risk. We go through what we go through for general kernel APIs
> > +for good reasons. It may end up leaking internal details in a way
> > +which can exert significant pain by locking the kernel into a contract
> > +that can't be maintained in a reasonable manner.
>
> so the cgroup interface is not stable and won't be?
It'll be as stable as any other administration interfaces - sysctl,
iptables and so on, which are stable but can usually be deprecated if
really necessary whereas a syscall interface exposed to lay programs
has to be maintained for actual eternity. It comes from the fact that
the administrative tools are naturally more closely coupled with the
kernel and the time it takes to reach the point where nobody notices
removal of deprecated interface often measures in years rather than
eternity.
> > +Also, due to the specific nature, cgroup and its controllers don't
> > +tend to attract attention from wide-scope of developers. cgroup's
>
> from a wide scope of developers.
Updated.
> > +Keeping cgroup as an administration interface is both advantageous for
> > +its role and an imperative given its nature. Some of the cgroup
>
> and imperative given
Updated. Dang articles.
> Two comments that apply in multiple places:
>
> a. Call cgroup's interface files "files". E.g.:
>
> root's "cgroup.subtree_control" determines ...
>
> becomes:
>
> root's "cgroup.subtree_control" file determines
>
> b. Call cgroup controllers "controllers" or "controller". E.g.:
>
> memory currently doesn't have a way to control what happens between
>
> becomes:
>
> The memory controller currently doesn't have a way to control what happens between
Updated.
Thanks a lot for the review!
--
tejun
Unified hierarchy will be the new version of cgroup interface. This
patch adds Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt which describes
the design and rationales of unified hierarchy.
v2: Grammatical updates as per Randy Dunlap's review.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt | 359 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 359 insertions(+)
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/cgroups/unified-hierarchy.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,359 @@
+
+Cgroup unified hierarchy
+
+April, 2014 Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
+
+This document describes the changes made by unified hierarchy and
+their rationales. It will eventually be merged into the main cgroup
+documentation.
+
+CONTENTS
+
+1. Background
+2. Basic Operation
+ 2-1. Mounting
+ 2-2. cgroup.subtree_control
+ 2-3. cgroup.controllers
+3. Structural Constraints
+ 3-1. Top-down
+ 3-2. No internal tasks
+4. Other Changes
+ 4-1. [Un]populated Notification
+ 4-2. Other Core Changes
+ 4-3. Per-Controller Changes
+ 4-3-1. blkio
+ 4-3-2. cpuset
+ 4-3-3. memory
+5. Planned Changes
+ 5-1. CAP for resource control
+
+
+1. Background
+
+cgroup allows an arbitrary number of hierarchies and each hierarchy
+can host any number of controllers. While this seems to provide a
+high level of flexibility, it isn't quite useful in practice.
+
+For example, as there is only one instance of each controller, utility
+type controllers such as freezer which can be useful in all
+hierarchies can only be used in one. The issue is exacerbated by the
+fact that controllers can't be moved around once hierarchies are
+populated. Another issue is that all controllers bound to a hierarchy
+are forced to have exactly the same view of the hierarchy. It isn't
+possible to vary the granularity depending on the specific controller.
+
+In practice, these issues heavily limit which controllers can be put
+on the same hierarchy and most configurations resort to putting each
+controller on its own hierarchy. Only closely related ones, such as
+the cpu and cpuacct controllers, make sense to put on the same
+hierarchy. This often means that userland ends up managing multiple
+similar hierarchies repeating the same steps on each hierarchy
+whenever a hierarchy management operation is necessary.
+
+Unfortunately, support for multiple hierarchies comes at a steep cost.
+Internal implementation in cgroup core proper is dazzlingly
+complicated but more importantly the support for multiple hierarchies
+restricts how cgroup is used in general and what controllers can do.
+
+There's no limit on how many hierarchies there may be, which means
+that a task's cgroup membership can't be described in finite length.
+The key may contain any varying number of entries and is unlimited in
+length, which makes it highly awkward to handle and leads to addition
+of controllers which exist only to identify membership, which in turn
+exacerbates the original problem.
+
+Also, as a controller can't have any expectation regarding what shape
+of hierarchies other controllers would be on, each controller has to
+assume that all other controllers are operating on completely
+orthogonal hierarchies. This makes it impossible, or at least very
+cumbersome, for controllers to cooperate with each other.
+
+In most use cases, putting controllers on hierarchies which are
+completely orthogonal to each other isn't necessary. What usually is
+called for is the ability to have differing levels of granularity
+depending on the specific controller. In other words, hierarchy may
+be collapsed from leaf towards root when viewed from specific
+controllers. For example, a given configuration might not care about
+how memory is distributed beyond a certain level while still wanting
+to control how CPU cycles are distributed.
+
+Unified hierarchy is the next version of cgroup interface. It aims to
+address the aforementioned issues by having more structure while
+retaining enough flexibility for most use cases. Various other
+general and controller-specific interface issues are also addressed in
+the process.
+
+
+2. Basic Operation
+
+2-1. Mounting
+
+Currently, unified hierarchy can be mounted with the following mount
+command. Note that this is still under development and scheduled to
+change soon.
+
+ mount -t cgroup -o __DEVEL__sane_behavior cgroup $MOUNT_POINT
+
+All controllers which are not bound to other hierarchies are
+automatically bound to unified hierarchy and show up at the root of
+it. Controllers which are enabled only in the root of unified
+hierarchy can be bound to other hierarchies at any time. This allows
+mixing unified hierarchy with the traditional multiple hierarchies in
+a fully backward compatible way.
+
+
+2-2. cgroup.subtree_control
+
+All cgroups on unified hierarchy have a "cgroup.subtree_control" file
+which governs which controllers are enabled on the children of the
+cgroup. Let's assume a hierarchy like the following.
+
+ root - A - B - C
+ \ D
+
+root's "cgroup.subtree_control" file determines which controllers are
+enabled on A. A's on B. B's on C and D. This coincides with the
+fact that controllers on the immediate sub-level are used to
+distribute the resources of the parent. In fact, it's natural to
+assume that resource control knobs of a child belong to its parent.
+Enabling a controller in a "cgroup.subtree_control" file declares that
+distribution of the respective resources of the cgroup will be
+controlled. Note that this means that controller enable states are
+shared among siblings.
+
+When read, the file contains a space-separated list of currently
+enabled controllers. A write to the file should contain a
+space-separated list of controllers with '+' or '-' prefixed (without
+the quotes). Controllers prefixed with '+' are enabled and '-'
+disabled. If a controller is listed multiple times, the last entry
+wins. The specific operations are executed atomically - either all
+succeed or fail.
+
+
+2-3. cgroup.controllers
+
+Read-only "cgroup.controllers" file contains a space-separated list of
+controllers which can be enabled in the cgroup's
+"cgroup.subtree_control" file.
+
+In the root cgroup, this lists controllers which are not bound to
+other hierarchies and the content changes as controllers are bound to
+and unbound from other hierarchies.
+
+In non-root cgroups, the content of this file equals that of the
+parent's "cgroup.subtree_control" file as only controllers enabled
+from the parent can be used in its children.
+
+
+3. Structural Constraints
+
+3-1. Top-down
+
+As it doesn't make sense to nest control of an uncontrolled resource,
+all non-root "cgroup.subtree_control" files can only contain
+controllers which are enabled in the parent's "cgroup.subtree_control"
+file. A controller can be enabled only if the parent has the
+controller enabled and a controller can't be disabled if one or more
+children have it enabled.
+
+
+3-2. No internal tasks
+
+One long-standing issue that cgroup faces is the competition between
+tasks belonging to the parent cgroup and its children cgroups. This
+is inherently nasty as two different types of entities compete and
+there is no agreed-upon obvious way to handle it. Different
+controllers are doing different things.
+
+The cpu controller considers tasks and cgroups as equivalents and maps
+nice levels to cgroup weights. This works for some cases but falls
+flat when children should be allocated specific ratios of CPU cycles
+and the number of internal tasks fluctuates - the ratios constantly
+change as the number of competing entities fluctuates. There also are
+other issues. The mapping from nice level to weight isn't obvious or
+universal, and there are various other knobs which simply aren't
+available for tasks.
+
+The blkio controller implicitly creates a hidden leaf node for each
+cgroup to host the tasks. The hidden leaf has its own copies of all
+the knobs with "leaf_" prefixed. While this allows equivalent control
+over internal tasks, it's with serious drawbacks. It always adds an
+extra layer of nesting which may not be necessary, makes the interface
+messy and significantly complicates the implementation.
+
+The memory controller currently doesn't have a way to control what
+happens between internal tasks and child cgroups and the behavior is
+not clearly defined. There have been attempts to add ad-hoc behaviors
+and knobs to tailor the behavior to specific workloads. Continuing
+this direction will lead to problems which will be extremely difficult
+to resolve in the long term.
+
+Multiple controllers struggle with internal tasks and came up with
+different ways to deal with it; unfortunately, all the approaches in
+use now are severely flawed and, furthermore, the widely different
+behaviors make cgroup as whole highly inconsistent.
+
+It is clear that this is something which needs to be addressed from
+cgroup core proper in a uniform way so that controllers don't need to
+worry about it and cgroup as a whole shows a consistent and logical
+behavior. To achieve that, unified hierarchy enforces the following
+structural constraint:
+
+ Except for the root, only cgroups which don't contain any task may
+ have controllers enabled in their "cgroup.subtree_control" files.
+
+Combined with other properties, this guarantees that, when a
+controller is looking at the part of the hierarchy which has it
+enabled, tasks are always only on the leaves. This rules out
+situations where child cgroups compete against internal tasks of the
+parent.
+
+There are two things to note. Firstly, the root cgroup is exempt from
+the restriction. Root contains tasks and anonymous resource
+consumption which can't be associated with any other cgroup and
+requires special treatment from most controllers. How resource
+consumption in the root cgroup is governed is up to each controller.
+
+Secondly, the restriction doesn't take effect if there is no enabled
+controller in the cgroup's "cgroup.subtree_control" file. This is
+important as otherwise it wouldn't be possible to create children of a
+populated cgroup. To control resource distribution of a cgroup, the
+cgroup must create children and transfer all its tasks to the children
+before enabling controllers in its "cgroup.subtree_control" file.
+
+
+4. Other Changes
+
+4-1. [Un]populated Notification
+
+cgroup users often need a way to determine when a cgroup's
+subhierarchy becomes empty so that it can be cleaned up. cgroup
+currently provides release_agent for it; unfortunately, this mechanism
+is riddled with issues.
+
+- It delivers events by forking and execing a userland binary
+ specified as the release_agent. This is a long deprecated method of
+ notification delivery. It's extremely heavy, slow and cumbersome to
+ integrate with larger infrastructure.
+
+- There is single monitoring point at the root. There's no way to
+ delegate management of a subtree.
+
+- The event isn't recursive. It triggers when a cgroup doesn't have
+ any tasks or child cgroups. Events for internal nodes trigger only
+ after all children are removed. This again makes it impossible to
+ delegate management of a subtree.
+
+- Events are filtered from the kernel side. A "notify_on_release"
+ file is used to subscribe to or suppress release events. This is
+ unnecessarily complicated and probably done this way because event
+ delivery itself was expensive.
+
+Unified hierarchy implements an interface file "cgroup.populated"
+which can be used to monitor whether the cgroup's subhierarchy has
+tasks in it or not. Its value is 0 if there is no task in the cgroup
+and its descendants; otherwise, 1. poll and [id]notify events are
+triggered when the value changes.
+
+This is significantly lighter and simpler and trivially allows
+delegating management of subhierarchy - subhierarchy monitoring can
+block further propagation simply by putting itself or another process
+in the subhierarchy and monitor events that it's interested in from
+there without interfering with monitoring higher in the tree.
+
+In unified hierarchy, the release_agent mechanism is no longer
+supported and the interface files "release_agent" and
+"notify_on_release" do not exist.
+
+
+4-2. Other Core Changes
+
+- None of the mount options is allowed.
+
+- remount is disallowed.
+
+- rename(2) is disallowed.
+
+- The "tasks" file is removed. Everything should at process
+ granularity. Use the "cgroup.procs" file instead.
+
+- The "cgroup.procs" file is not sorted. pids will be unique unless
+ they got recycled in-between reads.
+
+- The "cgroup.clone_children" file is removed.
+
+
+4-3. Per-Controller Changes
+
+4-3-1. blkio
+
+- blk-throttle becomes properly hierarchical.
+
+
+4-3-2. cpuset
+
+- Tasks are kept in empty cpusets after hotplug and take on the masks
+ of the nearest non-empty ancestor, instead of being moved to it.
+
+- A task can be moved into an empty cpuset, and again it takes on the
+ masks of the nearest non-empty ancestor.
+
+
+4-3-3. memory
+
+- use_hierarchy is on by default and the cgroup file for the flag is
+ not created.
+
+
+5. Planned Changes
+
+5-1. CAP for resource control
+
+Unified hierarchy will require one of the capabilities(7), which is
+yet to be decided, for all resource control related knobs. Process
+organization operations - creation of sub-cgroups and migration of
+processes in sub-hierarchies may be delegated by changing the
+ownership and/or permissions on the cgroup directory and
+"cgroup.procs" interface file; however, all operations which affect
+resource control - writes to a "cgroup.subtree_control" file or any
+controller-specific knobs - will require an explicit CAP privilege.
+
+This, in part, is to prevent the cgroup interface from being
+inadvertently promoted to programmable API used by non-privileged
+binaries. cgroup exposes various aspects of the system in ways which
+aren't properly abstracted for direct consumption by regular programs.
+This is an administration interface much closer to sysctl knobs than
+system calls. Even the basic access model, being filesystem path
+based, isn't suitable for direct consumption. There's no way to
+access "my cgroup" in a race-free way or make multiple operations
+atomic against migration to another cgroup.
+
+Another aspect is that, for better or for worse, the cgroup interface
+goes through far less scrutiny than regular interfaces for
+unprivileged userland. The upside is that cgroup is able to expose
+useful features which may not be suitable for general consumption in a
+reasonable time frame. It provides a relatively short path between
+internal details and userland-visible interface. Of course, this
+shortcut comes with high risk. We go through what we go through for
+general kernel APIs for good reasons. It may end up leaking internal
+details in a way which can exert significant pain by locking the
+kernel into a contract that can't be maintained in a reasonable
+manner.
+
+Also, due to the specific nature, cgroup and its controllers don't
+tend to attract attention from a wide scope of developers. cgroup's
+short history is already fraught with severely mis-designed
+interfaces, unnecessary commitments to and exposing of internal
+details, broken and dangerous implementations of various features.
+
+Keeping cgroup as an administration interface is both advantageous for
+its role and imperative given its nature. Some of the cgroup features
+may make sense for unprivileged access. If deemed justified, those
+must be further abstracted and implemented as a different interface,
+be it a system call or process-private filesystem, and survive through
+the scrutiny that any interface for general consumption is required to
+go through.
+
+Requiring CAP is not a complete solution but should serve as a
+significant deterrent against spraying cgroup usages in non-privileged
+programs.
On 04/16/2014 06:51 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:36:29PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> +depending on the specific controller. IOW, hierarchy may be collapsed
>>
>> please spell out IOW
>
> Updated, but is this really necessary?
It depends on who your audience is. I probably think that the audience
is larger than you think it is.
>> I would prefer to see CPU instead of cpu (except when it refers to a
>> task or function).
>
> cpu sometimes refer to the cpu controller. Will use CPU when it's
> actually referring to the CPU.
OK, thanks.
--
~Randy
On 2014/4/17 4:16, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 04/16/2014 06:51 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:36:29PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> +depending on the specific controller. IOW, hierarchy may be collapsed
>>>
>>> please spell out IOW
>>
>> Updated, but is this really necessary?
>
> It depends on who your audience is. I probably think that the audience
> is larger than you think it is.
>
Yeah, I had to google it. :)
On Wed 16-04-14 10:52:48, Tejun Heo wrote:
[....]
> +The memory controller currently doesn't have a way to control what
> +happens between internal tasks and child cgroups and the behavior is
> +not clearly defined.
I am not sure I understand this. Could you be more specific what exactly
is not clearly defined?
Thanks
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Hello,
Hope you enjoyed the vacation. :)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 06:27:07PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 16-04-14 10:52:48, Tejun Heo wrote:
> [....]
> > +The memory controller currently doesn't have a way to control what
> > +happens between internal tasks and child cgroups and the behavior is
> > +not clearly defined.
>
> I am not sure I understand this. Could you be more specific what exactly
> is not clearly defined?
Oh, the fact that there are no control knobs for the internal tasks,
so when there's contention involving both internal tasks and child
cgroups, how resources are distributed is implementation specific
without clearly defined rules.
Thanks.
--
tejun