Re: [PATCH 0/9] sched: Core scheduling interfaces

[Josh Don]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 2:01 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Josh, you being on the other Google team, the one that actually uses the
> cgroup interface AFAIU, can you fight the good fight with TJ on this?

A bit of extra context is in
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CABk29NtTScu2HO7V9Di+Fh2gv8zu5xiC5iNRwPFCLhpD+DKP0A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

On the management/auditing side, the cgroup interface gives a clear
indication of which tasks share a cookie. It is a bit less attractive
to add a prctl interface for enumerating this.

Also on the management side, I illustrated in the above message how a
thread would potentially group together other threads. One limitation
of the current prctl interface is that the share_{to, from} always
operates on the current thread. Granted we can work around this as
described, and also potentially extend the prctl interface to operate
on two tasks.

So I agree that the cgroup interface here isn't strictly necessary,
though it seems convenient. I will double-check with internal teams
that would be using the interface to see if there are any other
considerations I'm missing.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:30 AM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> My suggestion is going ahead with the per-process interface with cgroup
> extension on mind in case actual use cases arise. Also, when planning cgroup
> integration, putting dynamic migration front and center likely isn't a good
> idea.

tasks would not be frequently moved around; I'd expect security
configuration to remain mostly static. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding
your emphasis here?


If you feel the above is not strong enough (ie. there should be a use
case not feasible with prctl), I'd support that we move forward with
the prctl stuff for now, since the cgroup interface is independant.

Thanks,
Josh