From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 09:58:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190131085808.GO18811@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190130213131.GA13142@cmpxchg.org>
On Wed 30-01-19 16:31:31, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:05:59PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > I thought I have already mentioned an example. Say you have an observer
> > on the top of a delegated cgroup hierarchy and you setup limits (e.g. hard
> > limit) on the root of it. If you get an OOM event then you know that the
> > whole hierarchy might be underprovisioned and perform some rebalancing.
> > Now you really do not care that somewhere down the delegated tree there
> > was an oom. Such a spurious event would just confuse the monitoring and
> > lead to wrong decisions.
>
> You can construct a usecase like this, as per above with OOM, but it's
> incredibly unlikely for something like this to exist. There is plenty
> of evidence on adoption rate that supports this: we know where the big
> names in containerization are; we see the things we run into that have
> not been reported yet etc.
>
> Compare this to real problems this has already caused for
> us. Multi-level control and monitoring is a fundamental concept of the
> cgroup design, so naturally our infrastructure doesn't monitor and log
> at the individual job level (too much data, and also kind of pointless
> when the jobs are identical) but at aggregate parental levels.
>
> Because of this wart, we have missed problematic configurations when
> the low, high, max events were not propagated as expected (we log oom
> separately, so we still noticed those). Even once we knew about it, we
> had trouble tracking these configurations down for the same reason -
> the data isn't logged, and won't be logged, at this level.
Yes, I do understand that you might be interested in the hierarchical
accounting.
> Adding a separate, hierarchical file would solve this one particular
> problem for us, but it wouldn't fix this pitfall for all future users
> of cgroup2 (which by all available evidence is still most of them) and
> would be a wart on the interface that we'd carry forever.
I understand even this reasoning but if I have to chose between a risk
of user breakage that would require to reimplement the monitoring or an
API incosistency I vote for the first option. It is unfortunate but this
is the way we deal with APIs and compatibility.
> Adding a note in cgroup-v2.txt doesn't make up for the fact that this
> behavior flies in the face of basic UX concepts that underly the
> hierarchical monitoring and control idea of the cgroup2fs.
>
> The fact that the current behavior MIGHT HAVE a valid application does
> not mean that THIS FILE should be providing it. It IS NOT an argument
> against this patch here, just an argument for a separate patch that
> adds this functionality in a way that is consistent with the rest of
> the interface (e.g. systematically adding .local files).
>
> The current semantics have real costs to real users. You cannot
> dismiss them or handwave them away with a hypothetical regression.
>
> I would really ask you to consider the real world usage and adoption
> data we have on cgroup2, rather than insist on a black and white
> answer to this situation.
Those users requiring the hierarchical beahvior can use the new file
without any risk of breakages so I really do not see why we should
undertake the risk and do it the other way around.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-31 8:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-23 22:31 [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events Chris Down
2019-01-24 0:24 ` Roman Gushchin
2019-01-24 1:03 ` Chris Down
2019-01-24 8:22 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-24 15:21 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-24 15:51 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-24 16:00 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-01-24 17:01 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-24 18:23 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-01-25 8:42 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-25 16:51 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-25 17:37 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-25 18:28 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-28 12:51 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-28 14:28 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-28 14:52 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-28 14:54 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-28 15:18 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-28 15:41 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-28 17:05 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-28 17:49 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-29 14:43 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-29 14:52 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-30 16:50 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-30 17:06 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-30 17:41 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-30 17:52 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-30 18:16 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-30 19:11 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-30 19:27 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-01-30 19:30 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-01-30 19:37 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-30 19:23 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-01-30 20:05 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-30 21:31 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-01-31 8:58 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-01-31 16:22 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-02-01 10:27 ` Michal Hocko
2019-02-01 16:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-01-28 15:59 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-28 16:05 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-28 16:08 ` Shakeel Butt
2019-01-28 16:12 ` Tejun Heo
2019-01-28 14:30 ` Tejun Heo
2019-02-08 22:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: Rename ambiguously named memory.stat counters and functions Chris Down
2019-02-08 22:44 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events Chris Down
2019-02-11 19:01 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-02-11 18:55 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: Rename ambiguously named memory.stat counters and functions Johannes Weiner
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=20190131085808.GO18811@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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).