Message-ID: <20130625000118.GT1918@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:01:18 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>
Cc:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
	bsingharora <bsingharora@...il.com>,
	"dhaval.giani" <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	jpoimboe <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
	lpoetter <lpoetter@...hat.com>,
	workman-devel <workman-devel@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts

Hello, Tim.

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 04:13:41PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> I'm very sorry I let this fall off my plate.  I was pointed at a
> systemd-devel message indicating that this is done.  Is it so?  It

It's progressing pretty fast.

> seems so completely ass-backwards to me. Below is one of our use-cases
> that I just don't see how we can reproduce in a single-heierarchy.

Configurations which depend on orthogonal multiple hierarchies of
course won't be replicated under unified hierarchy.  It's unfortunate
but those just have to go.  More on this later.

> We're also long into the model that users can control their own
> sub-cgroups (moderated by permissions decided by admin SW up front).

If you're in control of the base system, nothing prevents you from
doing so.  It's utterly broken security and policy-enforcement point
of view but if you can trust each software running on your system to
do the right thing, it's gonna be fine.

> This gives us 4 combinations:
>   1) { production, DTF }
>   2) { production, non-DTF }
>   3) { batch, DTF }
>   4) { batch non-DTF }
> 
> Of these, (3) is sort of nonsense, but the others are actually used
> and needed.  This is only
> possible because of split hierarchies.  In fact, we undertook a very painful
> process to move from a unified cgroup hierarchy to split hierarchies in large
> part _because of_ these examples.

You can create three sibling cgroups and configure cpuset and blkio
accordingly.  For cpuset, the setup wouldn't make any different.  For
blkio, the two non-DTFs would now belong to different cgroups and
compete with each other as two groups, which won't matter at all as
non-DTFs are given what's left over after serving DTFs anyway, IIRC.

> Making cgroups composable allows us to build a higher level abstraction that
> is very powerful and flexible.  Moving back to unified hierarchies goes
> against everything that we're doing here, and will cause us REAL pain.

Categorizing processes into hierarchical groups of tasks is a
fundamental idea and a fundamental idea is something to base things on
top of as it's something people can agree upon relatively easily and
establish a structure by.  I'd go as far as saying that it's the
failure on the part of workload design if they in general can't be
categorized hierarchically.

Even at the practical level, the orthogonal hierarchy encouraged, at
the very least, the blkcg writeback support which can't be upstreamed
in any reasonable manner because it is impossible to say that a
resource can't be said to belong to a cgroup irrespective of who's
looking at it.

It's something fundamentally broken and I have very difficult time
believing google's workload is so different that it can't be
categorized in a single hierarchy for the purpose of resource
distribution.  I'm sure there are cases where some compromises are
necessary but the laternative is much worse here.  As I wrote multiple
times now, multiple orthogonal hierarchy support is gonna be around
for some time, so I don't think there's any rason for panic; that
said, please at least plan to move on.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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