[Devel] Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy!

[Sam Vilain]

Allow me to annotate your nice summary. A lot of this is elaborating on
what you are saying; and I think where we disagree, the differences are
not important.

Paul Jackson wrote:
> We have actors, known as threads, tasks or processes, which use things,
> which are instances of such classes of things as disk partitions,
> file systems, memory, cpus, and semaphores.
>
> We assign names to these things, such as SysV id's to the semaphores,
> mount points to the file systems, pathnames to files and file
> descriptors to open files.  These names provide handles that
> are typically more convenient and efficient to use, but alas less
> persistent, less ubiquitous, and needing of some dereferencing when
> used, to identify the underlying thing.
>
> Any particular assignment of names to some of the things in particular
> class forms one namespace (aka 'space', above).  For each class of
> things, a given task is assigned one such namespace.  Typically many
> related tasks (such as all those of a login session or a job) will be
> assigned the same set of namespaces, leading to various opportunities
> for optimizing the management of namespaces in the kernel.
>
> This assignment of names to things is neither injective nor surjective
> nor even a complete map.
>
> For example, not all file systems are mounted, certainly not all
> possible mount points (all directories) serve as mount points,
> sometimes the same file system is mounted in multiple places, and
> sometimes more than one file system is mounted on the same mount point,
> one hiding the other.
>   

Right, which is why I preferred the term "mount space" or "mount
namespace". The keys in the map are not as important as the presence of
the independent map itself.

Unadorned "namespaces" is currently how they are known, and short of
becoming the Hurd I don't think this term is appropriate for Linux.

> In so far as the code managing this naming is concerned, the names are
> usually fairly arbitrary, except that there seems to be a tendency
> toward properly virtualizing these namespaces, presenting to a task
> the namespaces assigned it as if that was all there was, hiding the
> presence of alternative namespaces, and intentionally not providing a
> 'global view' that encompasses all namespaces of a given class.
>
> This tendency culminates in the full blown virtual machines, such as
> Xen and KVM, which virtualize more or less all namespaces.
>   

Yes, these systems, somewhat akin to microkernels, virtualize all
namespaces as a byproduct of their nature.

> Because the essential semantics relating one namespace to another are
> rather weak (the namespaces for any given class of things are or can
> be pretty much independent of each other), there is a preference and
> a tradition to keep such sets of namespaces a simple flat space.
>   

This has been the practice to date with most worked implementations,
with the proviso that as the feature becomes standard people may start
expecting spaces within spaces to work indistinguishably from top level
spaces; in fact, perhaps there should be no such distinction between a
"top" space and a subservient space, other than the higher level space
is aware of the subservient space.

Consider, for instance, that BIND already uses Linux kernel features
which are normally only attributed to the top space, such as adjusting
ulimits and unsetting capability bits. This kind of application
self-containment may become more commonplace.

And this perhaps begs the question: is it worth the performance penalty,
or must there be one?

> Conclusions regarding namespaces, aka spaces:
>
>     A namespace provide a set of convenient handles for things of a
>     particular class.
>
>     For each class of things, every task gets one namespace (perhaps
>     a Null or Default one.)
>   

Conceptually, every task exists in exactly one space of each type,
though that space may see and/or administer other spaces.

>     Namespaces are partial virtualizations, the 'space of namespaces'
>     is pretty flat, and the assignment of names in one namespace is
>     pretty independent of the next.
>
> ===
>
> That much covers what I understand (perhaps in error) of namespaces.
>
> So what's this resource accounting/limits stuff?
>
> I think this depends on adding one more category to our universe.
>
> For the purposes of introducing yet more terms, I will call this
> new category a "metered class."
>   

The term "metered" implies "a resource which renews over time". How does
this apply to a fixed limit? A limit's nominal unit may not be delimited
in terms of time, but it must be continually maintained, so it can be
"metered" in terms of use of that limit over time.

For instance, a single system in scheduling terms is limited to the use
of the number of CPUs present in the system. So, while it has a "limit"
of 2 CPUs, in terms of a metered resource, it has a maximum rate of 2
CPU seconds per second.

> Each time we set about to manage some resource, we tend to construct
> some more elaborate "metered classes" out of the elemental classes
> of things (partitions, cpus, ...) listed above.
>
> Examples of these more elaborate metered classes include percentages
> of a networks bandwidth, fractions of a nodes memory (the fake numa
> patch), subsets of the systems cpus and nodes (cpusets), ...
>   

Indeed, and some of the key performance benefits of the containers
approach is that the resource limits may be implemented in a "soft"
fashion, that can makes available system resource in demand by some
containers. For instance, available RAM, or space in a filesystem.

> These more elaborate metered classes each have fairly 'interesting'
> and specialized forms.  Their semantics are closely adapted to the
> underlying class of things from which they are formed, and to the
> usually challenging, often conflicting, constraints on managing the
> usage of such a resource.
>
> For example, the rules that apply to percentages of a networks
> bandwidth have little in common with the rules that apply to sets of
> subsets of a systems cpus and nodes.
>
> We then attach tasks to these metered classes.  Each task is assigned
> one metered instance from each metered class.  For example, each task
> is assigned to a cpuset.
>
> For metered classes that are visible across the system, we tend
> to name these classes, and then use those names when attaching
> tasks to them.  See for example cpusets.
>
> For metered classes that are only privately visible within the
> current context of a task, such as setrlimit, set_mempolicy,
> mbind and set_mempolicy, we tend to implicitly attach each task
> to its current metered class and provide it explicit means
> to manipulate the individual attributes of that metered class
> by direct system calls.
>
> Conclusions regarding metered classes, aka containers:
>
>     Unlike namespaces, metered classes have rich and varied semantics,
>     sometimes elaborate inheritance and transfer rules, and frequently
>     non-flat topologies.
>   

I think this is most true from the perspective of the person managing
the system. They may set up arbitrarily complex rules to manage the
systems they are responsible for.

Namespaces may transfer and inherit properties as well. For instance in
the case of mount namespaces, clones of a mountspaces may in existing
kernels be set to receive updates of mounts in the mountspace it was
cloned from. In the case of a level 3 network space (netspace?
ipspace?), the parent namespace is responsible for the routing and
master iptables, and there may be rules determined about the
interoperation between, for instance the parent iptables and the
iptables which processes in the subservient space can affect.

The difference is that these relationships would not be expected to be
tuned, so much as a few common arrangements of inheritance and transfer
selected between. For instance, not every level 3 network space should
be able to access control iptables rules for its addresses.

>     Depending on the scope of visibility of a metered class, it may
>     or may not have much of a formal name space.
>
> ===
>
> My current understanding of Paul Menage's container patch is that it is
> a useful improvement for some of the metered classes - those that could
> make good use of a file system like hierarchy for their interface.
> It probably doesn't benefit all metered classes, as they won't all
> benefit from a file system like hierarchy, or even have a formal name
> space, and it doesn't seem to benefit the name space implementation,
> which happily remains flat.
>   

Utmost care should be taken to checkpoint/migration as this filesystem
is developed; nothing should be revealed which would not be possible to
keep after a checkpoint + migration, as there may be running processes
which are inspecting the data available through the interface.

> I could easily be wrong in this understanding.
>
> ===
>
> For those metered classes which have system wide names, it may -seem-
> that attaching tasks to selected instances of those classes is much
> the same operation as is attaching a task to a namespace.   Perhaps
> the sense that this was so has been the driving force behind trying
> to unite namespaces and containers.
>
> However, as I've described above, these seem rather different to me.
> The underlying semantics, topology, and variety are different, and
> some of these differences are necessarily exposed at the point that
> we attach tasks to namespaces or containers.
>   

Different, I would say, largely because to be similar it would require
the abstractions and systems of the kernel to have been built using the
container / space as the starting point. So corresponding concepts meet
varying semantics on either side, so any attempt to build the systems
together would be fraught with difficulty.

> Moreover, each of these namespaces and each of these metered classes
> typically has its own dedicated API across the kernel-user boundary,
> so sharing of kernel implementation internals is mostly just a
> private matter for the kernel.
>
> Conclusions:
>
>    We're discussing kernel internal optimizations here, not
>    user visible API issues.  As Serge keeps reminding us, this is
>    just an optimization.
>
>    I tend to favor keeping spaces and containers relatively separate,
>    minimizing the entwining of them to where there is a clear
>    performance (space, time, or scaling) win, and to where that
>    optimization doesn't depend on trying to force fit either spaces
>    or containers into the mold of the other.   

Keep the last word.
Sam.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers