From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753268Ab1JLM7q (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:59:46 -0400 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:55845 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753011Ab1JLM7p (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:59:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4E958F1B.80605@parallels.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:59:07 +0400 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frederic Weisbecker CC: Peter Zijlstra , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] Make total_forks per-cgroup References: <1317583287-18300-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1317583287-18300-6-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1317805535.6766.6.camel@twins> <4E8C4990.1050704@parallels.com> <20111011234548.GB14968@somewhere> <4E954356.2000409@parallels.com> <20111012125857.GE14968@somewhere> In-Reply-To: <20111012125857.GE14968@somewhere> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/12/2011 04:59 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:35:50AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: >> On 10/12/2011 03:45 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 04:12:00PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: >>>> On 10/05/2011 01:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 2011-10-02 at 23:21 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: >>>>>> This patch counts the total number of forks per-cgroup. >>>>>> The information is propagated to the parent, so the total >>>>>> number of forks in the system, is the parent cgroup's one. >>>>>> >>>>>> To achieve that, total_forks is made per-cpu. There is no >>>>>> particular reason to do that, but by doing this, we are >>>>>> able to bundle it inside the cpustat structure already >>>>>> present. >>>>> >>>>> I think fweisbec is also doing something with forks and cgroups. >>>> >>>> I am all ears... >>>> >>>> Frederic, does it conflict with what you're doing ? >>> >>> I don't know if that really conflicts but I'm working >>> on a cgroup subsystem that is able to control the number >>> of tasks running in a subsystem. >>> >>> It consists in two new files added: >>> >>> * tasks.usage >>> * tasks.limit >>> >>> The subsystem rejects any new fork or migration into the >>> cgroup when tasks.usage> tasks.limit >>> >>> So tasks.usage can inform you about the number of tasks >>> running into the cgroup. It's not strictly the number >>> of forks because it also counts the tasks that have been >>> attached to the cgroup. >>> >>> But something like a tasks.fork file could be implemented >>> in that subsystem as well. >>> >>> It depends on what you need. >> >> So the specific piece I am working on, is to display /proc/stat >> information per-cgroup. One of the many fields it has, is >> total_forks. >> (it is actually just a small part of the series) >> So instead of tracking how many forks the system has in total, I'll >> track it per-cpucgroup. >> >> So I don't think we conflict at all. At the very least, IIUC, you >> are planning to account and check *before* a fork happens, right? >> This particular stat is incremented after it already succeeded. > > That doesn't make much difference since the accounting is cancelled > in case the fork is finally rejected. > > But probably having a simple accouting like you do involves less > overhead than the whole task counter subsystem. > > Is your counting propagated to the parents in a hierarchy? > For example if A is parent cgroup of B and C, does A account the > forks happening in B and C? Yes.