lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFD 0/9] per-cgroup /proc/stat statistics
From
Date
On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 19:20 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since I've sent already a RFC about it, I am sending now a RFD.
> If you eager for meaning, this can then be a "Request for Doctors",
> since Peter is likely to have a heart attack now.

:-)

All we need is to ensure the case of cgroups enabled but not used isn't
actually more expensive that what we have now, after that, if people
create a 100 deep cgroup hierarchy they get what they asked.

From a conceptual pov this patch-set is a lot saner than the previous
one, doesn't duplicate nearly as much and actually tries to improve the
code (although I suspect simply killing off cputime64_t as a whole will
get us even more).

> So here's the deal:
>
> * My main goal here was to demonstrate that we can avoid double accounting
> in a lot of places. So what I did was getting rid of the original and first
> kstat mechanism, and use only cgroups accounting for that. Since the parent
> is always updated, the original stats are the one for the root cgroup.

Right, current patch-set won't compile for those who have CGROUP=n
kernels though, need to find something for that. Shouldn't be too hard
though. It looks like you only need to provide static per-cpu storage
and a custom version of task_cgroup_account_field().

> * I believe that all those cpu cgroups are confusing and should be unified. Not
> that we can simply get rid of it, but my goal here is to provide all the
> information they do, in cpu cgroup. If the set of tasks needed for accounting
> is not independent of the ones in cpu cgroup, we can avoid double accounting
> for that. I default cpuacct to n, but leave it to people that wants to use it
> alone.

Amen! Ideally we place cpuacct on the deprecated list or somesuch..

> * Well, I'm also doing what I was doing originally: Providing a per-cgroup version
> of the /proc/stat file.

Right, so how much sense does it make to keep calling it proc.stat?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-28 00:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans