[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts
    On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Lennart Poettering
    <> wrote:
    > Heya,
    > On 29.06.2013 05:05, Tim Hockin wrote:
    >> Come on, now, Lennart. You put a lot of words in my mouth.
    >>> I for sure am not going to make the PID 1 a client of another daemon.
    >>> That's
    >>> just wrong. If you have a daemon that is both conceptually the manager of
    >>> another service and the client of that other service, then that's bad
    >>> design
    >>> and you will easily run into deadlocks and such. Just think about it: if
    >>> you
    >>> have some external daemon for managing cgroups, and you need cgroups for
    >>> running external daemons, how are you going to start the external daemon
    >>> for
    >>> managing cgroups? Sure, you can hack around this, make that daemon
    >>> special,
    >>> and magic, and stuff -- or you can just not do such nonsense. There's no
    >>> reason to repeat the fuckup that cgroup became in kernelspace a second
    >>> time,
    >>> but this time in userspace, with multiple manager daemons all with
    >>> different
    >>> and slightly incompatible definitions what a unit to manage actualy is...
    >> I forgot about the tautology of systemd. systemd is monolithic.
    > systemd is certainly not monolithic for almost any definition of that term.
    > I am not sure where you are taking that from, and I am not sure I want to
    > discuss on that level. This just sounds like FUD you picked up somewhere and
    > are repeating carelessly...

    It does a number of sort-of-related things. Maybe it does them better
    by doing them together. I can't say, really. We don't use it at
    work, and I am on Ubuntu elsewhere, for now.

    >> But that's not my point. It seems pretty easy to make this cgroup
    >> management (in "native mode") a library that can have either a thin
    >> veneer of a main() function, while also being usable by systemd. The
    >> point is to solve all of the problems ONCE. I'm trying to make the
    >> case that systemd itself should be focusing on features and policies
    >> and awesome APIs.
    > You know, getting this all right isn't easy. If you want to do things
    > properly, then you need to propagate attribute changes between the units you
    > manage. You also need something like a scheduler, since a number of
    > controllers can only be configured under certain external conditions (for
    > example: the blkio or devices controller use major/minor parameters for
    > configuring per-device limits. Since major/minor assignments are pretty much
    > unpredictable these days -- and users probably want to configure things with
    > friendly and stable /dev/disk/by-id/* symlinks anyway -- this requires us to
    > wait for devices to show up before we can configure the parameters.) Soo...
    > you need a graph of units, where you can propagate things, and schedule
    > things based on some execution/event queue. And the propagation and
    > scheduling are closely intermingled.

    I'm really just talking about the most basic low-level substrate of
    writing to cgroupfs. Again, we don't use udev (yet?) so we don't have
    these problems. It seems to me that it's possible to formulate a
    bottom layer that is usable by both systemd and non-systemd systems.
    But, you know, maybe I am wrong and our internal universe is so much
    simpler (and behind the times) than the rest of the world that
    layering can work for us and not you.

    > Now, that's pretty much exactly what systemd actually *is*. It implements a
    > graph of units with a scheduler. And if you rip that part out of systemd to
    > make this an "easy cgroup management library", then you simply turn what
    > systemd is into a library without leaving anything. Which is just bogus.
    > So no, if you say "seems pretty easy to make this cgroup management a
    > library" then well, I have to disagree with you.
    >>> We want to run fewer, simpler things on our systems, we want to reuse as
    >> Fewer and simpler are not compatible, unless you are losing
    >> functionality. Systemd is fewer, but NOT simpler.
    > Oh, certainly it is. If we'd split up the cgroup fs access into separate
    > daemon of some kind, then we'd need some kind of IPC for that, and so you
    > have more daemons and you have some complex IPC between the processes. So
    > yeah, the systemd approach is certainly both simpler and uses fewer daemons
    > then your hypothetical one.

    Well, it SOUNDS like Serge is trying to develop this to demonstrate
    that a standalone daemon works. That's what I am keen to help with
    (or else we have to invent ourselves). I am not really afraid of IPC
    or of "more daemons". I much prefer simple agents doing one thing and
    interacting with each other in simple ways. But that's me.

    >>> much of the code as we can. You don't achieve that by running yet another
    >>> daemon that does worse what systemd can anyway do simpler, easier and
    >>> better.
    >> Considering this is all hypothetical, I find this to be a funny
    >> debate. My hypothetical idea is better than your hypothetical idea.
    > Well, systemd is pretty real, and the code to do the unified cgroup
    > management within systemd is pretty complete. systemd is certainly not
    > hypothetical.

    Fair enough - I did not realize you had already done all the work that
    Serge is just starting out on.

    >>> The least you could grant us is to have a look at the final APIs we will
    >>> have to offer before you already imply that systemd cannot be a valid
    >>> implementation of any API people could ever agree on.
    >> Whoah, don't get defensive. I said nothing of the sort. The fact of
    >> the matter is that we do not run systemd, at least in part because of
    >> the monolithic nature. That's unlikely to change in this timescale.
    > Oh, my. I am not sure what makes you think it is monolithic.

    It is not a replacement for any one thing. It is a replacement for a
    handful of things that we are not keen to change all at once. That's
    all. I have not personally looked at what subsystems are able to be
    compiled-out so we could do an incremental changeover, though, so
    maybe it can work in different modes? I don't know. I am not
    pursuing this anyway, so I am not the person to convince, regardless.

    >> What I said was that it would be a shame if we had to invent our own
    >> low-level cgroup daemon just because the "upstream" daemons was too
    >> tightly coupled with systemd.
    > I have no interest to reimplement systemd as a library, just to make you
    > happy... I am quite happy with what we already have....
    >> This is supposed to be collaborative, not combative.
    > It certainly sounds *very* differently in what you are writing.

    Sorry, then. No offense intended. I'm just looking for opportunities
    to not-replicate work, if this whole model is going to be thrust upon


     \ /
      Last update: 2013-07-01 08:21    [W:0.037 / U:110.904 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site