From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@ghostprotocols.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
serge.hallyn@canonical.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroup TODOs
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:39:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrX78_twPUkNTZbtXQv9yBnW+-c9RhetassdrQKicOiDFg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120920182651.GH28934@google.com>
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 06:33:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> [grr. why does gmane scramble addresses?]
>
> You can append /raw to the message url and see the raw mssage.
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers/23802/raw
Thanks!
>
>> > I think this level of flexibility should be enough for most use
>> > cases. If someone disagrees, please voice your objections now.
>>
>> OK, I'll bite.
>>
>> I have a server that has a whole bunch of cores. A small fraction of
>> those cores are general purpose and run whatever they like. The rest
>> are tightly controlled.
>>
>> For simplicity, we have two cpusets that we use. The root allows all
>> cpus. The other one only allows the general purpose cpus. We shove
>> everything into the general-purpose-only cpuset, and then we move
>> special stuff back to root. (We also shove some kernel threads into a
>> non-root cpuset using the 'cset' tool.)
>
> Using root for special stuff probably isn't a good idea and moving
> bound kthreads into !root cgroups is already disallowed.
Agreed. I do it this way because it's easy and it works. I can
change it in the future if needed.
>
>> Enter systemd, which wants a hierarchy corresponding to services. If we
>> were to use it, we might end up violating its hierarchy.
>>
>> Alternatively, if we started using memcg, then we might have some tasks
>> to have more restrictive memory usage but less restrictive cpu usage.
>>
>> As long as we can still pull this off, I'm happy.
>
> IIUC, you basically want just two groups w/ cpuset and use it for
> loose cpu ioslation for high priority jobs. Structure-wise, I don't
> think it's gonna be a problem although using root for special stuff
> would need to change.
Right.
But what happens when multiple hierarchies go away and I lose control
of the structure? If systemd or whatever sticks my whole session or
my service (or however I organize it) into cgroup /whatever, then
either I can put my use-all-cpus tasks into /whatever/everything or I
can step outside the hierarchy and put them into /everything. The
former doesn't work, because
<quote>
The following rules apply to each cpuset:
- Its CPUs and Memory Nodes must be a subset of its parents.
</quote>
The latter might confuse systemd.
My real objection might be to that requirement a cpuset can't be less
restrictive than its parents. Currently I can arrange for a task to
simultaneously have a less restrictive cpuset and a more restrictive
memory limit (or to stick it into a container or whatever). If the
hierarchies have to correspond, this stops working.
--Andy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-20 18:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-13 20:58 [RFC] cgroup TODOs Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 9:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-09-14 17:17 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 9:10 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2012-09-14 13:58 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 19:29 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 21:51 ` Kay Sievers
[not found] ` <5052E7DF.7040000@parallels.com>
2012-09-14 9:12 ` Li Zefan
2012-09-14 11:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 17:59 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 18:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 18:33 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 17:43 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-17 8:50 ` Glauber Costa
2012-09-17 17:21 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 11:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 12:54 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2012-09-14 17:53 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 14:25 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 15:14 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 21:57 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-17 15:27 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-18 18:08 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 21:39 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-17 15:05 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-17 16:40 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 15:03 ` Michal Hocko
2012-09-19 14:02 ` Michal Hocko
2012-09-19 14:03 ` [PATCH 2.6.32] memcg: warn on deeper hierarchies with use_hierarchy==0 Michal Hocko
2012-09-19 19:38 ` David Rientjes
2012-09-20 13:24 ` Michal Hocko
2012-09-20 22:33 ` David Rientjes
2012-09-21 7:16 ` Michal Hocko
2012-09-19 14:03 ` [PATCH 3.0] " Michal Hocko
2012-09-19 14:05 ` [PATCH 3.2+] " Michal Hocko
2012-09-14 18:07 ` [RFC] cgroup TODOs Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 18:53 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 19:28 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 19:44 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 19:49 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-14 20:39 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-17 8:40 ` Glauber Costa
2012-09-17 17:30 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-17 14:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-14 18:36 ` Aristeu Rozanski
2012-09-14 18:54 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-15 2:20 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2012-09-15 9:27 ` Controlling devices and device namespaces Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-15 22:05 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2012-09-16 0:24 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16 3:31 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2012-09-16 11:21 ` Alan Cox
2012-09-16 11:56 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16 12:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16 13:32 ` Serge Hallyn
2012-09-16 14:23 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16 16:13 ` Alan Cox
2012-09-16 17:49 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16 16:15 ` Serge Hallyn
2012-09-16 16:53 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-16 8:19 ` [RFC] cgroup TODOs James Bottomley
2012-09-16 14:41 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-09-17 13:21 ` Aristeu Rozanski
2012-09-14 22:03 ` Dhaval Giani
2012-09-14 22:06 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-20 1:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2012-09-20 18:26 ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-20 18:39 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2012-09-21 21:40 ` Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CALCETrX78_twPUkNTZbtXQv9yBnW+-c9RhetassdrQKicOiDFg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \
--cc=tgraf@suug.ch \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).