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;
Date:   Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:37:23 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Yi Tao <escape@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     tj@kernel.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        mcgrof@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, yzaikin@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, shanpeic@linux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] support cgroup pool in v1
Message-ID: <YTiugxO0cDge47x6@kroah.com>
References: <cover.1631102579.git.escape@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1631102579.git.escape@linux.alibaba.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 08:15:11PM +0800, Yi Tao wrote:
> In a scenario where containers are started with high concurrency, in
> order to control the use of system resources by the container, it is
> necessary to create a corresponding cgroup for each container and
> attach the process. The kernel uses the cgroup_mutex global lock to
> protect the consistency of the data, which results in a higher
> long-tail delay for cgroup-related operations during concurrent startup.
> For example, long-tail delay of creating cgroup under each subsystems
> is 900ms when starting 400 containers, which becomes bottleneck of
> performance. The delay is mainly composed of two parts, namely the
> time of the critical section protected by cgroup_mutex and the
> scheduling time of sleep. The scheduling time will increase with
> the increase of the cpu overhead.

Perhaps you shouldn't be creating that many containers all at once?
What normal workload requires this?

thanks,

greg k-h