On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 5:24 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:42:43PM -0400, Kenny Ho wrote:
> > Um... I am going to get a bit philosophical here and suggest that the
> > idea of sharing (especially uncontrolled sharing) is inherently at odd
> > with containment. It's like, if everybody is special, no one is
> > special. Perhaps an alternative is to make this configurable so that
> > people can allow sharing knowing the caveat? And just to be clear,
> > the current solution allows for sharing, even between cgroup.
>
> The thing is, why shouldn't we just allow it (with some documented
> caveat)?
>
> I mean if all people do is share it as your current patches allow, then
> there's nothing funny going on (at least if we go with just leaking the
> allocations). If we allow additional sharing, then that's a plus.
Um... perhaps I was being overly conservative :). So let me
illustrate with an example to add more clarity and get more comments
on it.
Let say we have the following cgroup hierarchy (The letters are
cgroups with R being the root cgroup. The numbers in brackets are
processes. The processes are placed with the 'No Internal Process
Constraint' in mind.)
R (4, 5) ------ A (6)
\
B ---- C (7,8)
\
D (9)
Here is a list of operation and the associated effect on the size
track by the cgroups (for simplicity, each buffer is 1 unit in size.)
With current implementation (charge on buffer creation with
restriction on sharing.)
R A B C D |Ops
================
1 0 0 0 0 |4 allocated a buffer
1 0 0 0 0 |4 shared a buffer with 5
1 0 0 0 0 |4 shared a buffer with 9
2 0 1 0 1 |9 allocated a buffer
3 0 2 1 1 |7 allocated a buffer
3 0 2 1 1 |7 shared a buffer with 8
3 0 2 1 1 |7 sharing with 9 (not allowed)
3 0 2 1 1 |7 sharing with 4 (not allowed)
3 0 2 1 1 |7 release a buffer
2 0 1 0 1 |8 release a buffer from 7
The suggestion as I understand it (charge per buffer reference with
unrestricted sharing.)
R A B C D |Ops
================
1 0 0 0 0 |4 allocated a buffer
2 0 0 0 0 |4 shared a buffer with 5
3 0 0 0 1 |4 shared a buffer with 9
4 0 1 0 2 |9 allocated a buffer
5 0 2 1 1 |7 allocated a buffer
6 0 3 2 1 |7 shared a buffer with 8
7 0 4 2 2 |7 sharing with 9
8 0 4 2 2 |7 sharing with 4
7 0 3 1 2 |7 release a buffer
6 0 2 0 2 |8 release a buffer from 7
Is this a correct understanding of the suggestion?
Regards,
Kenny
