[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/10] Make total_forks per-cgroup
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?


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-12 15:01    [W:0.056 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site