Quoting Tejun Heo (tj@xxxxxxxxxx): > Hello, Serge. > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:22:06AM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote: > > At some point (probably soon) we might want to talk about a standard API > > for these things. However I think it will have to come in the form of > > a standard library, which knows to either send requests over dbus to > > systemd, or over /dev/cgroup sock to the manager. > > Yeah, eventually, I think we'll have a standardized way to configure > resource distribution in the system. Maybe we'll agree on a > standardized dbus protocol or there will be library, I don't know; > however, whatever form it may be in, it abstraction level should be > way higher than that of direct cgroupfs access. It's way too low > level and very easy to end up in a complete nonsense configuration. > > e.g. enabling "cpu" on a cgroup whlie leaving other cgroups alone > wouldn't enable fair scheduling on that cgroup but drastically reduce > the amount of cpu share it gets as it now gets treated as single > entity competing with all tasks at the parent level. Right. I *think* this can be offered as a daemon which sits as the sole consumer of my agent's API, and offers a higher level "do what I want" API. But designing that API is going to be interesting. I should find a good, up-to-date summary of the current behaviors of each controller so I can talk more intelligently about it. (I'll start by looking at the kernel Documentation/cgroups, but don't feel too confident that they'll be uptodate :) > At the moment, I'm not sure what the eventual abstraction would look > like. systemd is extending its basic constructs by adding slices and > scopes and it does make sense to integrate the general organization of > the system (services, user sessions, VMs and so on) with resource > management. Given some time, I'm hoping we'll be able to come up with > and agree on some common constructs so that each workload can indicate > its resource requirements in a unified way. > > That said, I really think we should experiment for a while before > trying to settle down on things. We've now just started exploring how > system-wide resource managment can be made widely available to systems > without requiring extremely specialized hand-crafted configurations > and I'm pretty sure we're getting and gonna get quite a few details > wrong, so I don't think it'd be a good idea to try to agree on things > right now. As far as such integration goes, I think it's time to play > with things and observe the results. Right, I'm not attached to my toy implementation at all - except for the ability, in some fashion, to have nested agents which don't have cgroupfs access but talk to another agent to get the job done. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
