[Devel] Re: [PATCH] cgroup: support checking of subsystem dependencies (v2)

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:51:36 +0800 Li Zefan <lizf at cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> This allows one subsystem to require that it only be mounted when some
> other subsystems are also present in the proposed hierarchy.
> 
> For example if subsystem foo depends on bar, the following will fail:
>  # mount -t cgroup -ofoo xxx /dev/cgroup
> 
> You should mount with both subsystems:
>  # mount -t cgroup -ofoo,bar xxx /dev/cgroup
> 
> foo may implement the subsys_depend() callback this way:
> 
> static int foo_cgroup_subsys_depend(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
> 				    unsigned long subsys_bits)
> {
> 	if (!test_bit(bar_cgroup_subsys_id, &subsys_bits))
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> Changelog:
> - call check_subsys_depend() in parse_cgroupfs_options(), but not in mount
>   and remount code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf at cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/cgroups.txt |    6 ++++++
>  include/linux/cgroup.h    |    2 ++
>  kernel/cgroup.c           |   21 ++++++++++++++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/cgroups.txt b/Documentation/cgroups.txt
> index 824fc02..8252f5b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/cgroups.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/cgroups.txt
> @@ -530,6 +530,12 @@ and root cgroup. Currently this will only involve movement between
>  the default hierarchy (which never has sub-cgroups) and a hierarchy
>  that is being created/destroyed (and hence has no sub-cgroups).
>  
> +int subsys_depend(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, unsigned long subsys_bits)
> +
> +Called when a cgroup subsystem wants to check if some other subsystems
> +are also present in the proposed hierarchy. If this method returns error,
> +the mount of the cgroup filesystem will fail.

OK, but the name subsys_depend is quite poor.

check_subsys_dependency is better.  But it still has the failing that
the reader cannot determine the sense of the function's return value
from its name.  Does it return true on success, or false?

A good name would be something like subsys_dependencies_ok().  Then
code such as

	if (subsys_dependencies_ok(...))
		go_wild();
	else
		bad_hair_day();

makes more sense.


>  4. Questions
>  ============
>  
> diff --git a/include/linux/cgroup.h b/include/linux/cgroup.h
> index e155aa7..fc99ba4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cgroup.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cgroup.h
> @@ -305,6 +305,8 @@ struct cgroup_subsys {
>  			struct cgroup *cgrp);
>  	void (*post_clone)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp);
>  	void (*bind)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *root);
> +	int (*subsys_depend)(struct cgroup_subsys *ss,
> +			      unsigned long subsys_bits);
>  	/*
>  	 * This routine is called with the task_lock of mm->owner held
>  	 */
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index 15ac0e1..18e8132 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -774,6 +774,25 @@ static int cgroup_show_options(struct seq_file *seq, struct vfsmount *vfs)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int check_subsys_dependency(unsigned long subsys_bits)

Would be nice to have a little comment explaining this function's role
in the world.  It should document the meaning of the return values.

Perhaps it could return bool.  That depends upon a well-chosen name,
and upon the thus-far-undocumented return-value meaning.

> +{
> +	int i;
> +	int ret;
> +	struct cgroup_subsys *ss;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
> +		ss = subsys[i];
> +
> +		if (test_bit(i, &subsys_bits) && ss->subsys_depend) {
> +			ret = ss->subsys_depend(ss, subsys_bits);
> +			if (ret)
> +				return ret;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}


>  struct cgroup_sb_opts {
>  	unsigned long subsys_bits;
>  	unsigned long flags;
> @@ -834,7 +853,7 @@ static int parse_cgroupfs_options(char *data,
>  	if (!opts->subsys_bits)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	return 0;
> +	return check_subsys_dependency(opts->subsys_bits);
>  }

The whole patch doesn't do anything.  Perhaps there's another patch in
the pipeline somewhere which adds one or more ->subsys_depend
implementations, but I cannot find it.  If so, I'd have expected this
patch to be titled [1/N].
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers