lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: cgroup: status-quo and userland efforts
    Lennart,

    On Sun, 30 Jun 2013, Lennart Poettering wrote:
    > On 29.06.2013 05:05, Tim Hockin wrote:
    > > 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.

    you are confusing policy and mechanisms.

    The access to cgroupfs is mechanism.

    The propagation of changes, the scheduling of cgroupfs access and
    the correlation to external conditions are policy.

    What Tim is asking for is to have a common interface, i.e. a library
    which implements the low level access to the cgroupfs mechanism
    without imposing systemd defined policies to it (It might implement a
    set of common useful policies, but that's a different discussion).

    That's definitely not an unreasonable request, because he wants to
    implement his own set of policies which are not necessarily the same
    as those which are implemented by systemd.

    You are simply ignoring the fact, that Linux is used in other ways
    than those which you are focussed on. That's true for Google's way to
    manage its gazillion machines and that's equally true for the other
    end of the spectrum which is deep embedded or any other specialized
    use case. Just face it: running Linux on your laptop and on some RHT
    lab machines is covering about 1% of the use cases.

    Nevertheless you repeatedly claim, that systemd is the only way to
    deal with system startup and system management, is covering _ALL_ use
    cases and the interfaces you expose are sufficient.

    Did you ever work on specialized embedded or big data use cases? I
    really doubt that, but I might be wrong as usual.

    So I invite you to prove that you can beat an existing setup for an
    automotive use case with your magic systemd foo. I refund you fully,
    if you can beat the mark of a functional system less than 800ms after
    reset release on a 200MHz ARM machine. Functional is defined by the
    use case requirements and means:

    - Basic cgroups management working
    - GUI up and running
    - Main communication interface (CAN bus) up and running

    The rest of the system is starting up after that including a more
    complex cgroup management.

    According to your claim that systemd is covering everything and some
    more, this should take you a few hours. I grant you a full week to
    work on that.

    The use case Tim is talking about is different, but has similar
    constraints which are completely driven by his particular use case
    scenario. I'm sure, that Tim can persuade his management to setup a
    similar contest to prove your expertise on the other extreme of the
    Linux world.

    Before answering please think about the relevance of your statements
    "getting this all right isn't easy", "something like a scheduler",
    "users probably want ..." and "stable /dev/disk/by-id/* symlinks" in
    those contexts.

    Thanks,

    tglx


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-07-03 02:01    [W:2.434 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site