Re: [RFC v2 2/2] cgroup: sev: Miscellaneous cgroup documentation.

Jacob Pan
2021-03-12T20:57:01Z

Hi Vipin & Tejun,

Sorry for the late reply, I sent from a different email address than I
intended. Please see my comments inline.

On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 03:51:16 -0500, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 10:22:03PM -0800, Vipin Sharma wrote:
> > > I am trying to see if IOASIDs cgroup can also fit in this misc
> > > controller as yet another resource type.
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/20210303131726.7a8cb169@jacob-builder/T/#u
> > > However, unlike sev IOASIDs need to be migrated if the process is
> > > moved to another cgroup. i.e. charge the destination and uncharge the
> > > source.
> > >
> > > Do you think this behavior can be achieved by differentiating resource
> > > types? i.e. add attach callbacks for certain types. Having a single
> > > misc interface seems cleaner than creating another controller.
> >
> > I think it makes sense to add support for migration for the resources
> > which need it. Resources like SEV, SEV-ES will not participate in
> > migration and won't stop can_attach() to succeed, other resources which
> > need migration will allow or stop based on their limits and capacity in
> > the destination.
>
Sounds good. Perhaps some capability/feature flags for each resource such
that different behavior can be accommodated?
Could you please include me in your future posting? I will rebase on yours.

> Please note that cgroup2 by and large don't really like or support charge
> migration or even migrations themselves. We tried that w/ memcg on cgroup1
> and it turned out horrible. The expected usage model as decribed in the
> doc is using migration to seed a cgroup (or even better, use the new
> clone call to start in the target cgroup) and then stay there until exit.
> All existing controllers assume this usage model and I'm likely to nack
> deviation unless there are some super strong justifications.
>
Thank you so much for the pointers. Just to be clear, you meant
1. Use clone3 CLONE_INTO_CGROUP to put the child into a different cgroup.
2. Do not support migration of the parent (existing proc)

Thanks,

Jacob