Message-ID: <4FCCD92F.1070007@oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:50:07 +0800
From:	Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@...cle.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:	Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>, tytso@....edu,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, david@...morbit.com,
	hch@...radead.org, bpm@....com, christopher.jones@...cle.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org, tm@....ma,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, chris.mason@...cle.com,
	tinguely@....com
Subject: Re: container disk quota

On 06/04/2012 10:55 PM, Jeff Liu wrote:

> On 06/04/2012 09:56 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> 
>> On Mon 04-06-12 21:35:06, Jeff Liu wrote:
>>> On 06/04/2012 05:42 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon 04-06-12 12:46:49, Jeff Liu wrote:
>>>>> On 06/04/2012 10:57 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>>>>>> Quoting Jeff Liu (jeff.liu@...cle.com):
>>>>>>> Hi Serge,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 06/02/2012 12:04 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quoting Jan Kara (jack@...e.cz):
>>>>>>>>>   Hello,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed 30-05-12 22:58:54, jeff.liu@...cle.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> According to glauber's comments regarding container disk quota, it should be binded to mount
>>>>>>>>>> namespace rather than cgroup.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Per my try out, it works just fine by combining with userland quota utilitly in this way.
>>>>>>>>>> However, they are something has to be done at user tools too IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Currently, the patchset is in very initial phase, I'd like to post it early to seek more
>>>>>>>>>> feedbacks from you guys.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hopefully I can clarify my ideas clearly.
>>>>>>>>>   So what I miss in this introductory email is some highlevel description
>>>>>>>>> like what is the desired functionality you try to implement and what is it
>>>>>>>>> good for. Looking at the examples below, it seems you want to be able to
>>>>>>>>> set quota limits for namespace-uid (and also namespace-gid???) pairs, am I
>>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   If yes, then I would like to understand one thing: When writing to a
>>>>>>>>> file, used space is accounted to the owner of the file. Now how do we
>>>>>>>>> determine owning namespace? Do you implicitely assume that only processes
>>>>>>>>> from one namespace will be able to access the file?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 								Honza
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not having looked closely at the original patchset, let me ask - is this
>>>>>>>> feature going to be a freebie with Eric's usernamespace patches?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It we can reach a consensus to bind quota on mount namespace for
>>>>>>> container or other things maybe.
>>>>>>> I think it definitely should depends on user namespace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There, a container can be started in its own user namespace.  It's uid
>>>>>>>> 1000 will be mapped to something like 1101000 on the host.  So the actual
>>>>>>>> uid against who the quota is counted is 1101000.  In another container,
>>>>>>>> uid 1000 will be mapped to 1201000, and again quota will be counted against
>>>>>>>> 1201000.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it also an implications that we can examine do container quota or not
>>>>>>> based on the uid/gid number?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry I don't understand the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for my poor english.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an attempt at an answer:  the quota code wouldn't change at all.  We would
>>>>>> simply exploit the fact that uid 1000 in container1 has a real uid of 101100,
>>>>>> which is different from the real uid 102100 assigned to uid 1000 in container2
>>>>>> and from real uid 1000 (uid 1000 on the host).
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case, looks we only need to figure out how to let quota tools
>>>>> works at container.
>>>>> I'll build a new kernel with user_ns to give a try.
>>>>   GETQUOTA or SETQUOTA quotactls should work just fine inside a container
>>>> (for those quota-tools just need access to /proc/mounts). QUOTAON should
>>>> also work for e.g. XFS or ext4 with hidden quota files. When quota files
>>>> are visible in fs namespace (as for ext3 or so), things would be a bit
>>>> tricky because they won't be possibly visible from container and QUOTAON
>>>> needs that.
>>>
>>> I still think if we can cache container dquot on memory to make this
>>> feature as simple as possible. :)
>>   Sorry, I don't understand. Quota structures are cached in memory.
> 
> I means teaching Q_SETQUOTA routine, don't write those info to quota
> file if it was issued from container in quotacheck stage.  Instead,
> allocate a dquot object at memory and keep it until quotaoff or
> container destory procedures maybe.

Sorry, I must misled you.
We can not save quota usage info to memory cache without changing the
quota tools.

Originally, I introduced a new format option(which is "lxc") to
quotacheck, etc...
so if they were issued with -F "lxc" option, those tools will not
performed combined with quota file path as usual.

Since we would not like to change the quota tools, so it is absolutely
wrong.


Thanks,
-Jeff

> 
>> Also what would be simpler if you also do some caching in a container?
> 
> Sorry, does it means do caching in quota files?
> currently, I have no good idea in this point. :(
> 
>>
>>> And also, quotacheck is the major issue I have faced previously, since we need a reasonable approach to calculate
>>> and save the current inodes/blocks usage firstly.
>>   Yes, quotacheck inside a container is a problem. But similarly as with
>> quotaon(8), I think such global operation should rather be done outside.
>>  
>>>> Also with QUOTAON there is the principial problem that quotas either are or
>>>> are not enabled for the whole filesystem.
>>>
>>> IMHO, we could supply uid/gid quota for the whole filesystem only(i.e,
>>> the "/" rootfs), and we can support project quota among sub-directories
>>> in the future if possible.
>>>
>>>> So probably the only reasonable
>>>> choice when you would like to supporot quotas in the container would be to
>>>> have quotas enabled all the time, and inside the container, you would just
>>>> set some quota limits or you won't...
>>>
>>> I remember that ext4 has already supported quota as the first class,
>>> looks we can consider container quota same to that.
>>>
>>> So we can ignore the quotacheck step, only focus on quota limits setup
>>> inside container?
>>   Yes, that would be my suggestion.
> 
> Yeah, that would be fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Jeff
> 
>>
>> 								Honza
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists