Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935621Ab3DHTUb (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:20:31 -0400 Received: from mail-da0-f54.google.com ([209.85.210.54]:54867 "EHLO mail-da0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1763113Ab3DHTU3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:20:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:20:24 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Li Zefan , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, bsingharora@gmail.com, Kay Sievers , lpoetter@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhaval.giani@gmail.com, workman-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [Workman-devel] cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts Message-ID: <20130408192024.GL3021@htj.dyndns.org> References: <20130406012159.GA17159@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130408175925.GE28292@redhat.com> <20130408181607.GI3021@htj.dyndns.org> <20130408191105.GG28292@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130408191105.GG28292@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2325 Lines: 59 Hey, On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 03:11:05PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > What if the program crashes? > > I am not sure about this. I guess when applications comes back after crash, > it can go through all the children cgroups and reclaim empty cgroups. Fragile, right? What are you arguing here? > > Wouldn't it make more sense to just have > > a central arbitrator that everyone talks to? > > May be. Just that in the past folks have not liked the idea of talking > to central authority to figure out resource group of an object they are > managing. What we've been doing seems tragically broken to me, so I'm not sure "people didn't use to do it that way" is a good point. > > What's the benefit of > > distributing the responsiblities here? It's not like we can put them > > in different security domains. > > To me it makes sense in a way, as these resources associated with the > service is just one another property and there does not seem to be > anything special about this property that it should be managed using > a single centralized authority. > > For example, one might want to say that maximum IO bandwidth for > virtual machine virt1 on disk sda should be 10MB/s. Now libvirt > should be able to save it in virtual machine specific configuration > easily and whenever virtual machine is started, create a children > cgroup, set the limits as specified. Yes, sure, libvirt can *request* whatever it seems appropriate to the central authority, which will decide whether it'll be able to honor the request and grant it if possible and allowed by policies in effect. > That would make sense. systemd had this conflict with cgconfig > too. Problem is that systemd starts first and sets up everything. Now > if there is a service which sets up cgroups, after systemd startup, > it is already late. Come on, that's not a difficult or fundamental problem. Whatever the central authority may be, systemd can use it to setup the initial hierarchy or set up bare-bone hierarchy in compatible manner. This isn't that different from udev. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/