Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] Resource Management - Infrastructure choices

[Paul Menage]

On 10/31/06, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> For the case where resource node hierarchy is different from process
> container hierarchy, I am trying to make sense of "why do we need to
> maintain two hierarchies" - one the actual hierarchy used for resource
> control purpose, another the process container hierarchy. What purpose
> does maintaining the process container hierarchy (in addition to the
> resource controller hierarchy) solve?

The idea is that in general, people aren't going to want to have
separate hierarchies for different resources - they're going to have
the hierarchies be the same for all resources. So in general when they
move a process from one container to another, they're going to want to
move that task to use all the new resources limits/guarantees
simultaneously.

Having completely independent hierarchies makes this more difficult -
you have to manually maintain multiple different hierarchies from
userspace. Suppose a task forks while you're moving it from one
container to another? With the approach that each process is in one
container, and each container is in a set of resource nodes, at least
the child task is either entirely in the new resource limits or
entirely in the old limits - if userspace has to update several
hierarchies at once non-atomically then a freshly forked child could
end up with a mixture of resource nodes.

> I am thinking we can avoid maintaining these two hierarchies, by
> something on these lines:
>
>         mkdir /dev/cpu
>         mount -t container -ocpu container /dev/cpu
>
>                 -> Represents a hierarchy for cpu control purpose.
>
>                    tsk->cpurc   = represent the node in the cpu
>                                   controller hierarchy. Also maintains
>                                   resource allocation information for
>                                   this node.

If we were going to do something like this, hopefully it would look
more like an array of generic container subsystems, rather than a
separate named pointer for each subsystem.

>         mkdir /dev/mem
>         mount -t container -omem container /dev/mem
>
>                 -> Represents a hierarchy for mem control purpose.
>
>                    tsk->memrc   = represent the node in the mem
>                                   controller hierarchy. Also maintains
>                                   resource allocation information for
>                                   this node.
>
>                    tsk->memrc->parent = parent node.
>
>
>         mkdir /dev/containers
>         mount -t container -ocontainer container /dev/container
>
>                 -> Represents a (mostly flat?) hierarchy for the real
>                    container (virtualization) purpose.

I think we have an overloading of terminology here. By "container" I
just mean "group of processes tracked for resource control and other
purposes". Can we use a term like "virtual server" if you're doing
virtualization? I.e. a virtual server would be a specialization of a
container (effectively analagous to a resource controller)

> I suspect this may simplify the "container" filesystem, since it doesnt
> have to track multiple hierarchies at the same time, and improve lock
> contention too (modifying the cpu controller hierarchy can take a different
> lock than the mem controller hierarchy).

Do you think that lock contention when modifying hierarchies is
generally going to be an issue - how often do tasks get moved around
in the hierarchy, compared to the other operations going on on the
system?

Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/