Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:23:52 -0700 | From | "Paul Menage" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] How to handle the rules engine for cgroups |
| |
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote: > > As of today it should happen because newly execed process will run into > same cgroup as parent. But that's what probably we need to avoid. > For example, if an admin has created three cgroups "database", "browser" > "others" and a user launches "firefox" from shell (assuming shell is running > originally in "others" cgroup), then any memory allocation for firefox should > come from "browser" cgroup and not from "others".
I think that I'm a little skeptical that anyone would ever want to do that.
Wouldn't it be a simpler mechanism for the admin to simply have wrappers around the "firefox" and "oracle" binaries that move the process into the "browser" or "database" cgroup before running the real binaries?
> > I am assuming that this will be a requirement for enterprise class > systems. Would be good to know the experiences of people who are already > doing some kind of work load management.
I can help there. :-) At Google we have two approaches:
- grid jobs, which are moved into the appropriate cgroup (actually, currently cpuset) by the grid daemon when it starts the job
- ssh logins, which are moved into the appropriate cpuset by a forced-command script specified in the sshd config.
I don't see the rule-based approach being all that useful for our needs.
It's all very well coming up with theoretical cases that a fancy new mechanism solves. But it carries more weight if someone can stand up and say "Yes, I want to use this on my real cluster of machines". (Or even "Yes, if this is implemented I *will* use it on my desktop" would be a start)
Paul
| |