lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Attaching a cgroup subsystem to multiple hierarchies
From
On 8 February 2014 02:26, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com> wrote:
> (Add Michal back to the Cc list, and Cc cgroup mailing list)
>
> On 2014/2/7 17:21, Glyn Normington wrote:
>> Hi Michal
>>
>> On 6 Feb 2014, at 18:59, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed 05-02-14 14:39:52, Glyn Normington wrote:
>>>> Reading cgroups.txt and casting around the net leads me to believe
>>>> that it is possible to attach a cgroup subsystem (e.g. memory) to
>>>> multiple hierarchies, but this seems to result in "mirrored"
>>>> hierarchies which are automatically kept in step with each other -
>>>> essentially it looks like the same hierarchy at multiple file system
>>>> paths.
>>>>
>>>> Take the following interaction for example:
>>>>
>>>> \begin{verbatim}
>>>> $ pwd
>>>> /home/vagrant
>>>> $ mkdir mem1
>>>> $ mkdir mem2
>>>> $ sudo su
>>>> # mount -t cgroup -o memory none /home/vagrant/mem1
>>>> # mount -t cgroup -o memory none /home/vagrant/mem2
>>>> # cd mem1
>>>> # mkdir inst1
>>>> # ls inst1
>>>> cgroup.clone_children memory.failcnt ...
>>>> # ls ../mem2
>>>> cgroup.clone_children inst1 memory.limit_in_bytes ...
>>>> # cd inst1
>>>> # echo 1000000 > memory.limit_in_bytes
>>>> # cat memory.limit_in_bytes
>>>> 1003520
>>>> # cat ../../mem2/inst1/memory.limit_in_bytes
>>>> 1003520
>>>> # echo $$ > tasks
>>>> # cat tasks
>>>> 1365
>>>> 1409
>>>> # cat ../../mem2/inst1/tasks
>>>> 1365
>>>> 1411
>>>>
>>>> Is this working as intended?
>>>
>>> Yes, it doesn't make any sense to have two different views on the same
>>> controllers.
>>
>> Then wouldn't it be better for the second mount to fail?
>>
>
> We don't disallow mounting procfs/sysfs to more than one mount point.
> Why we want to do this to cgroupfs?
>

If we accept that this scenario does make sense (even if it's not
particularly useful), then yes, we should continue to allow it. But it
would be worth documenting the behaviour in cgroups.txt.

>>>
>>>> Is there some other way to attach a subsystem to *distinct*
>>>> hierarchies?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> Distinct hierarchies would allow distinct cgroups, distinct settings
>>>> (e.g. memory.limit_in_bytes) and distinct partitions of the tasks in
>>>> the system.
>>>
>>> Which one should be applied then?
>>
>> Good question. All of them, I would say: the constraints due to distinct settings would be ANDed together.
>>
>> The implementation would be more complex and less efficient as a subsystem's resources consumed by a process would need charging against each hierarchy to which the subsystem was attached.
>>
>> I very much doubt this would be worth implementing and I'm not at all suggesting it.
>>
>
> Don't even think about it. :)
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note: I don't have a good use for this function - I'm simply
>>>> trying to reverse engineer the semantics of cgroups to get a precise
>>>> understanding.
>>>
>>> I think there is no need to reverse engineer ;)
>>> Documentation/cgroups/cgroups.txt in the kernel tree does give a decent
>>> description IMO.
>>
>> I disagree. For example, cgroups.txt does not clearly state whether or not a single subsystem may be attached to distinct hierarchies.
>>
>> This seems to have caused confusion elsewhere. For example, Red Hat write "... a single subsystem can be attached to two hierarchies if both of those hierarchies have only that subsystem attached." ([1]).
>>
>
> No documentation is perfect, but you can make it better by sending us
> a patch.
>

I certainly intend to, after some more investigation.

--
Regards,
Glyn


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-08 10:41    [W:0.110 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site