Message-Id: <20070311141555.9951b7ba.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:15:55 -0700
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	Sam Vilain <sam@...ain.net>
Cc:	ebiederm@...ssion.com, matthltc@...ibm.com,
	ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	xemul@...ru, winget@...gle.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	menage@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka
 containers on top of nsproxy!

Sam, responding to Herbert:
> > from my personal PoV the following would be fine:
> >
> >  spaces (for the various 'spaces')
> >    ...
> >  container (for resource accounting/limits)
> >    ...
> 
> I like these a lot ...

Hmmm ... ok ...

Let me see if I understand this.

We have actors, known as threads, tasks or processes, which use things,
which are instances of such classes of things as disk partitions,
file systems, memory, cpus, and semaphores.

We assign names to these things, such as SysV id's to the semaphores,
mount points to the file systems, pathnames to files and file
descriptors to open files.  These names provide handles that
are typically more convenient and efficient to use, but alas less
persistent, less ubiquitous, and needing of some dereferencing when
used, to identify the underlying thing.

Any particular assignment of names to some of the things in particular
class forms one namespace (aka 'space', above).  For each class of
things, a given task is assigned one such namespace.  Typically many
related tasks (such as all those of a login session or a job) will be
assigned the same set of namespaces, leading to various opportunities
for optimizing the management of namespaces in the kernel.

This assignment of names to things is neither injective nor surjective
nor even a complete map.

For example, not all file systems are mounted, certainly not all
possible mount points (all directories) serve as mount points,
sometimes the same file system is mounted in multiple places, and
sometimes more than one file system is mounted on the same mount point,
one hiding the other.

In so far as the code managing this naming is concerned, the names are
usually fairly arbitrary, except that there seems to be a tendency
toward properly virtualizing these namespaces, presenting to a task
the namespaces assigned it as if that was all there was, hiding the
presence of alternative namespaces, and intentionally not providing a
'global view' that encompasses all namespaces of a given class.

This tendency culminates in the full blown virtual machines, such as
Xen and KVM, which virtualize more or less all namespaces.

Because the essential semantics relating one namespace to another are
rather weak (the namespaces for any given class of things are or can
be pretty much independent of each other), there is a preference and
a tradition to keep such sets of namespaces a simple flat space.

Conclusions regarding namespaces, aka spaces:

    A namespace provide a set of convenient handles for things of a
    particular class.

    For each class of things, every task gets one namespace (perhaps
    a Null or Default one.)

    Namespaces are partial virtualizations, the 'space of namespaces'
    is pretty flat, and the assignment of names in one namespace is
    pretty independent of the next.

===

That much covers what I understand (perhaps in error) of namespaces.

So what's this resource accounting/limits stuff?

I think this depends on adding one more category to our universe.

For the purposes of introducing yet more terms, I will call this
new category a "metered class."

Each time we set about to manage some resource, we tend to construct
some more elaborate "metered classes" out of the elemental classes
of things (partitions, cpus, ...) listed above.

Examples of these more elaborate metered classes include percentages
of a networks bandwidth, fractions of a nodes memory (the fake numa
patch), subsets of the systems cpus and nodes (cpusets), ...

These more elaborate metered classes each have fairly 'interesting'
and specialized forms.  Their semantics are closely adapted to the
underlying class of things from which they are formed, and to the
usually challenging, often conflicting, constraints on managing the
usage of such a resource.

For example, the rules that apply to percentages of a networks
bandwidth have little in common with the rules that apply to sets of
subsets of a systems cpus and nodes.

We then attach tasks to these metered classes.  Each task is assigned
one metered instance from each metered class.  For example, each task
is assigned to a cpuset.

For metered classes that are visible across the system, we tend
to name these classes, and then use those names when attaching
tasks to them.  See for example cpusets.

For metered classes that are only privately visible within the
current context of a task, such as setrlimit, set_mempolicy,
mbind and set_mempolicy, we tend to implicitly attach each task
to its current metered class and provide it explicit means
to manipulate the individual attributes of that metered class
by direct system calls.

Conclusions regarding metered classes, aka containers:

    Unlike namespaces, metered classes have rich and varied semantics,
    sometimes elaborate inheritance and transfer rules, and frequently
    non-flat topologies.
    
    Depending on the scope of visibility of a metered class, it may
    or may not have much of a formal name space.

===

My current understanding of Paul Menage's container patch is that it is
a useful improvement for some of the metered classes - those that could
make good use of a file system like hierarchy for their interface.
It probably doesn't benefit all metered classes, as they won't all
benefit from a file system like hierarchy, or even have a formal name
space, and it doesn't seem to benefit the name space implementation,
which happily remains flat.

I could easily be wrong in this understanding.

===

For those metered classes which have system wide names, it may -seem-
that attaching tasks to selected instances of those classes is much
the same operation as is attaching a task to a namespace.   Perhaps
the sense that this was so has been the driving force behind trying
to unite namespaces and containers.

However, as I've described above, these seem rather different to me.
The underlying semantics, topology, and variety are different, and
some of these differences are necessarily exposed at the point that
we attach tasks to namespaces or containers.

Moreover, each of these namespaces and each of these metered classes
typically has its own dedicated API across the kernel-user boundary,
so sharing of kernel implementation internals is mostly just a
private matter for the kernel.

Conclusions:

   We're discussing kernel internal optimizations here, not
   user visible API issues.  As Serge keeps reminding us, this is
   just an optimization.

   I tend to favor keeping spaces and containers relatively separate,
   minimizing the entwining of them to where there is a clear
   performance (space, time, or scaling) win, and to where that
   optimization doesn't depend on trying to force fit either spaces
   or containers into the mold of the other.   

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists