Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] cgroup/cpuset: A new "isolcpus" paritition

[Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>]

Hello,

On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 04:00:39PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
...
> > file seems hacky to me. e.g. How would it interact with namespacing? Are
> > there reasons why this can't be properly hierarchical other than the amount
> > of work needed? For example:
> > 
> >    cpuset.cpus.exclusive is a per-cgroup file and represents the mask of CPUs
> >    that the cgroup holds exclusively. The mask is always a subset of
> >    cpuset.cpus. The parent loses access to a CPU when the CPU is given to a
> >    child by setting the CPU in the child's cpus.exclusive and the CPU can't
> >    be given to more than one child. IOW, exclusive CPUs are available only to
> >    the leaf cgroups that have them set in their .exclusive file.
> > 
> >    When a cgroup is turned into a partition, its cpuset.cpus and
> >    cpuset.cpus.exclusive should be the same. For backward compatibility, if
> >    the cgroup's parent is already a partition, cpuset will automatically
> >    attempt to add all cpus in cpuset.cpus into cpuset.cpus.exclusive.
> > 
> > I could well be missing something important but I'd really like to see
> > something like the above where the reservation feature blends in with the
> > rest of cpuset.
> 
> It can certainly be made hierarchical as you suggest. It does increase
> complexity from both user and kernel point of view.
> 
> From the user point of view, there is one more knob to manage hierarchically
> which is not used that often.

From user pov, this only affects them when they want to create partitions
down the tree, right?

> From the kernel point of view, we may need to have one more cpumask per
> cpuset as the current subparts_cpus is used to track automatic reservation.
> We need another cpumask to contain extra exclusive CPUs not allocated
> through automatic reservation. The fact that you mention this new control
> file as a list of exclusively owned CPUs for this cgroup. Creating a
> partition is in fact allocating exclusive CPUs to a cgroup. So it kind of
> overlaps with the cpuset.cpus.partititon file. Can we fail a write to

Yes, it substitutes and expands on cpuset.cpus.partition behavior.

> cpuset.cpus.exclusive if those exclusive CPUs cannot be granted or will this
> exclusive list is only valid if a valid partition can be formed. So we need
> to properly manage the dependency between these 2 control files.

So, I think cpus.exclusive can become the sole mechanism to arbitrate
exclusive owenership of CPUs and .partition can depend on .exclusive.

> Alternatively, I have no problem exposing cpuset.cpus.exclusive as a
> read-only file. It is a bit problematic if we need to make it writable.

I don't follow. How would remote partitions work then?

> As for namespacing, you do raise a good point. I was thinking mostly from a
> whole system point of view as the use case that I am aware of does not needs
> that. To allow delegation of exclusive CPUs to a child cgroup, that cgroup
> has to be a partition root itself. One compromise that I can think of is to
> only allow automatic reservation only in such a scenario. In that case, I
> need to support a remote load balanced partition as well and hierarchical
> sub-partitions underneath it. That can be done with some extra code to the
> existing v2 patchset without introducing too much complexity.
> 
> IOW, the use of remote partition is only allowed on the whole system level
> where one has access to the cgroup root. Exclusive CPUs distribution within
> a container can only be done via the use of adjacent partitions with
> automatic reservation. Will that be a good enough compromise from your point
> of view?

It seems too twisted to me. I'd much prefer it to be better integrated with
the rest of cpuset.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun