[Devel] Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters

[Chandra Seetharaman]

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 18:45 -0700, Rohit Seth wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 14:45 -0700, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 17:24 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > > Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> > > > Kirill,
> > > > 
> > > > Here are some concerns I have (as of now) w.r.t using UBC for resource
> > > > management (in the context of resource groups).
> > > > 
> > > > - guarantee support is missing. I do not see any code to provide the
> > > >   minimum amount of resource a group can get. It is important for 
> > > >   providing QoS. (In a different email you did mention guarantee, i am
> > > >   referring it here for completeness).
> > > I mentioned a couple of times that this is a limited core functionality
> > > in this patch set.
> > > guarantees are implementable as a separate UBC parameters.
> > 
> > I will wait for oomguarpages patches :)
> > 
> > > 
> > > > - Creation of a UBC and assignment of task to a UBC always happen in
> > > >   the context of the task that is affected. I can understand it works in
> > > >   OpenVZ environment, but IMO has issues if one wants it to be used for 
> > > >   basic resource management
> > > >    - application needs to be changed to use this feature.
> > > >    - System administrator does not have the control to assign tasks to a
> > > >      UBC. Application does by itself.
> > > >    - Assignment of task to a UBC need to be transparent to the 
> > > >      application.
> 
> I agree with the above points.  Just want to add that assignment of a
> task to a container may not be transparent to the application.  For
> example it may hit some limits and some reclaim may happen...

By transparent I meant that the task _need_ not have to know that there
is a resource manager sitting and managing its resources. Task will
still see the effects of resource crunch etc., (but it will handle the
situation the same way as it would handle today).
 
So, it is transparent. A task don't have to know that the reclamation is
happening due to its affiliation to a resource group. Task will be
handling it as if there is a pressure for that particular resource.

> 
> > > this is not 100% true.
> > > UBC itself doesn't prevent from changing context on the fly.
> > > But since this leads to part of resources to be charged to
> > > one UBC and another part to another UBC and so long and so
> > 
> > Let the controllers and the users worry about that part. 
> > 
> 
> I think as the tasks move around, it becomes very heavy to move all the
> pages belonging to previous container to a new container.

Not for all resources, CPU could handle it very nicely, whereas memory
would be heavy. My point is that the infrastructure should be open, and
controller is the one that decides whether it wants to handle it or not.
 
> 
> > As I mentioned UBC might be perfect for container resource management,
> > but what I am talking for is resource management _without_ a container.
> > 
> 
> Can you explain that part a bit more?

Basically I was saying that even though resource management in container
and non-container have mostly same requirements, there are few
requirements that are critical in non-container scenario which are non-
issue in container scenario (for example, moving tasks from one resource
group to another).

In effect, Design of the infrastructure should not limit non-container
usages. 

IMO, non-container requirements are a superset of container requirements
(resource management purposes only :).

> 
> > > 
> > > > - No ability to maintain resource specific data in the controller.
> > > it's false. fields can be added to user_beancounter struct easily.
> > > and that's what our controllers do.
> > 
> > With the model of static array for resources (struct ubparm ub_parms
> > [UB_RESOURCES] in struct user_beancounter), it is not be possible to
> > attach _different_ "controller specific" information to each of the
> > entries.
> > 
> > I do not think it is good idea to add controller specific information of
> > _different_ controllers to the user_beancounter. Think of all the fields
> > it will have when all the numproc controller needs is just the basic 3-4
> > fields.
> > 
> 
> IMO it is okay to add  the fields whenever necessary as Kirill
> suggested.  I think once the container subject gets baked a little more,
> the controllers will also get tightly coupled.  

I think my point is not understood. I do not think it is right to add
_controller specific_ fields to the generic data structure (struct
user_beancounter), as we will end up with a generic data structure which
will have so many fields that are not used in so many controllers.

> 
> > > 
> > > > - No ability to get the list of tasks belonging to a UBC.
> > > it is not true. it can be read from /proc or system calls interface,
> > > just like the way one finds all tasks belonging to one user :)
> > > 
> > > BTW, what is so valueable in this feature?
> > 
> > Again, it may not be useful for container type usages (you can probably
> > get the list from somewhere else, but for resource management it is
> > useful for sysadmins).
> > 
> 
> I'm also debating about whether printing task information is really any
> useful.  If a sysadm wants to get information about any particular task
> then that can come from /proc/<pid>/container  Though container list
> will be one place where one can easily get the list of all the contained
> tasks (and other resources like files).

In non-container environment, there is _no_ /proc/pid/container, as
there is no concept of container :). This will be useful for non-
container scenario.

<snip>
-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan at us.ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------