lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in memory.events
On Wed 30-01-19 16:31:31, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 09:05:59PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > I thought I have already mentioned an example. Say you have an observer
> > on the top of a delegated cgroup hierarchy and you setup limits (e.g. hard
> > limit) on the root of it. If you get an OOM event then you know that the
> > whole hierarchy might be underprovisioned and perform some rebalancing.
> > Now you really do not care that somewhere down the delegated tree there
> > was an oom. Such a spurious event would just confuse the monitoring and
> > lead to wrong decisions.
>
> You can construct a usecase like this, as per above with OOM, but it's
> incredibly unlikely for something like this to exist. There is plenty
> of evidence on adoption rate that supports this: we know where the big
> names in containerization are; we see the things we run into that have
> not been reported yet etc.
>
> Compare this to real problems this has already caused for
> us. Multi-level control and monitoring is a fundamental concept of the
> cgroup design, so naturally our infrastructure doesn't monitor and log
> at the individual job level (too much data, and also kind of pointless
> when the jobs are identical) but at aggregate parental levels.
>
> Because of this wart, we have missed problematic configurations when
> the low, high, max events were not propagated as expected (we log oom
> separately, so we still noticed those). Even once we knew about it, we
> had trouble tracking these configurations down for the same reason -
> the data isn't logged, and won't be logged, at this level.

Yes, I do understand that you might be interested in the hierarchical
accounting.

> Adding a separate, hierarchical file would solve this one particular
> problem for us, but it wouldn't fix this pitfall for all future users
> of cgroup2 (which by all available evidence is still most of them) and
> would be a wart on the interface that we'd carry forever.

I understand even this reasoning but if I have to chose between a risk
of user breakage that would require to reimplement the monitoring or an
API incosistency I vote for the first option. It is unfortunate but this
is the way we deal with APIs and compatibility.

> Adding a note in cgroup-v2.txt doesn't make up for the fact that this
> behavior flies in the face of basic UX concepts that underly the
> hierarchical monitoring and control idea of the cgroup2fs.
>
> The fact that the current behavior MIGHT HAVE a valid application does
> not mean that THIS FILE should be providing it. It IS NOT an argument
> against this patch here, just an argument for a separate patch that
> adds this functionality in a way that is consistent with the rest of
> the interface (e.g. systematically adding .local files).
>
> The current semantics have real costs to real users. You cannot
> dismiss them or handwave them away with a hypothetical regression.
>
> I would really ask you to consider the real world usage and adoption
> data we have on cgroup2, rather than insist on a black and white
> answer to this situation.

Those users requiring the hierarchical beahvior can use the new file
without any risk of breakages so I really do not see why we should
undertake the risk and do it the other way around.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-31 09:58    [W:0.078 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site