From: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
joel@joelfernandes.org, chris.hyser@oracle.com,
joshdon@google.com, mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
valentin.schneider@arm.com, mgorman@suse.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 15:25:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YG8EYKgcwLCfIZAV@blackbook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YG37MBLBIXIPVv7u@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2485 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 08:34:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> IMO as long as cgroups have that tasks file, you get to support people
> using it. That means that tasks joining your cgroup need to 'inherit'
> cgroup properties.
The tasks file is consequence of binding this to cgroups, I'm one step
back. Why to make "core isolation" a cgroup property?
(I understand this could help "visualize" what the common domains are if
cgroups were the only API but with prctl the structure can be
arbitrarily modified anyway.)
> Given something like:
>
> R
> / \
> A B
> / \
> C D
Thanks for the example.
> B group can set core_sched=1 and then all its (and its decendants) tasks
> get to have the same (group) cookie and cannot share with others.
The same could be achieved with the first task of group B allocating its
new cookie which would be inherited in its descednants.
> If however B is a delegate and has a subgroup D that is security
> sensitive and must not share core resources with the rest of B, then it
> can also set D.core_sched=1, such that D (and its decendants) will have
> another (group) cookie.
If there is such a sensitive descendant task, it could allocate a new
cookie (same way as the first one in B did).
> On top of this, say C has a Real-Time tasks, that wants to limit SMT
> interference, then it can set a (task/prctl) cookie on itself, such that
> it will not share the core with the rest of the tasks of B.
(IIUC, in this particular example it'd be redundant if B had no inner
tasks since D isolated itself already.)
Yes, so this is again the same pattern as the tasks above have done.
> In that scenario the D subtree is a restriction (doesn't share) with the
> B subtree.
This implies D's isolation from everything else too, not just B's
members, no?
> And all of B is a restriction on all its tasks, including the Real-Time
> task that set a task cookie, in that none of them can share with tasks
> outside of B (including system tasks which are in R), irrespective of
> what they do with their task cookie.
IIUC, the equivalent restriction could be achieved with the PTRACE-like
check in the prctl API too (with respectively divided uids).
I'm curious whether the cgroup API actually simplifies things that are
possible with the clone/prctl API or allows anything that wouldn't be
otherwise possible.
Regards,
Michal
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-08 13:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-01 13:10 [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 1/9] sched: Allow sched_core_put() from atomic context Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 2/9] sched: Implement core-sched assertions Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 3/9] sched: Trivial core scheduling cookie management Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 20:04 ` Josh Don
2021-04-02 7:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 4/9] sched: Default core-sched policy Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 13:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 14:31 ` Chris Hyser
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 5/9] sched: prctl() core-scheduling interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 17:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-18 3:52 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 6/9] kselftest: Add test for core sched prctl interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 7/9] sched: Cgroup core-scheduling interface Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-02 0:34 ` Josh Don
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 8/9] rbtree: Remove const from the rb_find_add() comparator Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-01 13:10 ` [PATCH 9/9] sched: prctl() and cgroup interaction Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-03 1:30 ` Josh Don
2021-04-06 15:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-04 23:39 ` [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces Tejun Heo
2021-04-05 18:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-04-06 14:16 ` Tejun Heo
2021-04-18 1:35 ` Joel Fernandes
2021-04-19 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 13:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-21 14:45 ` Chris Hyser
2021-04-06 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-06 16:08 ` Tejun Heo
2021-04-07 18:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-07 16:50 ` Michal Koutný
2021-04-07 18:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-08 13:25 ` Michal Koutný [this message]
2021-04-08 15:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-04-09 0:16 ` Josh Don
2021-04-19 11:30 ` Tejun Heo
2021-04-20 1:17 ` Josh Don
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=YG8EYKgcwLCfIZAV@blackbook \
--to=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=chris.hyser@oracle.com \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=joshdon@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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).