[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200204115351.GD14879@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 12:53:51 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] clone3: allow spawning processes into cgroups
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:48:43PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> This adds support for creating a process in a different cgroup than its
> parent. Callers can limit and account processes and threads right from
> the moment they are spawned:
> - A service manager can directly spawn new services into dedicated
> cgroups.
> - A process can be directly created in a frozen cgroup and will be
> frozen as well.
> - The initial accounting jitter experienced by process supervisors and
> daemons is eliminated with this.
> - Threaded applications or even thread implementations can choose to
> create a specific cgroup layout where each thread is spawned
> directly into a dedicated cgroup.
>
> This feature is limited to the unified hierarchy. Callers need to pass
> an directory file descriptor for the target cgroup. The caller can
> choose to pass an O_PATH file descriptor. All usual migration
> restrictions apply, i.e. there can be no processes in inner nodes. In
> general, creating a process directly in a target cgroup adheres to all
> migration restrictions.
AFAICT, he *big* win here is avoiding the write side of the
cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem. Or am I mis-reading the patch?
That global lock is what makes moving tasks/threads around super
expensive, avoiding that by use of this clone() variant wins the day.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists