Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210401131012.395311786@infradead.org> <YGpOF6f0YcMkWy1u@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <YG3i2JF2vBY4CseK@blackbook> <YG37MBLBIXIPVv7u@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <YH1pygTubJHh3R9m@slm.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <YH1pygTubJHh3R9m@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:17:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABk29NtahuW6UERvRdK5v8My_MfPsoESDKXUjGdvaQcHOJEMvg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        "Hyser,Chris" <chris.hyser@oracle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:01 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> Josh, you being on the other Google team, the one that actually uses the
> cgroup interface AFAIU, can you fight the good fight with TJ on this?

A bit of extra context is in
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABk29NtTScu2HO7V9Di+Fh2gv8zu5xiC5iNRwPFCLhpD+DKP0A@mail.gmail.com.

On the management/auditing side, the cgroup interface gives a clear
indication of which tasks share a cookie. It is a bit less attractive
to add a prctl interface for enumerating this.

Also on the management side, I illustrated in the above message how a
thread would potentially group together other threads. One limitation
of the current prctl interface is that the share_{to, from} always
operates on the current thread. Granted we can work around this as
described, and also potentially extend the prctl interface to operate
on two tasks.

So I agree that the cgroup interface here isn't strictly necessary,
though it seems convenient. I will double-check with internal teams
that would be using the interface to see if there are any other
considerations I'm missing.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:30 AM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> My suggestion is going ahead with the per-process interface with cgroup
> extension on mind in case actual use cases arise. Also, when planning cgroup
> integration, putting dynamic migration front and center likely isn't a good
> idea.

tasks would not be frequently moved around; I'd expect security
configuration to remain mostly static. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding
your emphasis here?


If you feel the above is not strong enough (ie. there should be a use
case not feasible with prctl), I'd support that we move forward with
the prctl stuff for now, since the cgroup interface is independant.

Thanks,
Josh