[Devel] Re: How to draw values for /proc/stat

[Glauber Costa]

On 12/09/2011 03:55 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 12/09/2011 12:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 07:32 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Specially Peter and Paul, but all the others:
>>>
>>> As you can see in https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/4/178, and in my answer
>>> to that, there is a question - one I've asked before but without that
>>> much of an audience - of whether /proc files read from process living on
>>> cgroups should display global or per-cgroup resources.
>>>
>>> In the past, I was arguing for a knob to control that, but I recently
>>> started to believe that a knob here will only overcomplicate matters:
>>> if you live in a cgroup, you should display only the resources you can
>>> possibly use. Global is for whoever is in the main cgroup.
>>>
>>> Now, it comes two questions:
>>> 1) Do you agree with that, for files like /proc/stat ? I think the most
>>> important part is to be consistent inside the system, regardless of what
>>> is done
>>
>> Personally I don't give a rats arse about (/proc vs) cgroups :-)
>> Currently /proc is unaffected by whatever cgroup you happen to be in and
>> that seems to make some sort of sense.
>>
>> Namespaces seem to be about limiting visibility, cgroups about
>> controlling resources.
>>
>> The two things are hopelessly disjoint atm, but I believe someone was
>> looking at this mess.
>
> I did take a look at this (if anyone else was, I'd like to know so we
> can share some ideas), but I am not convinced we should do anything to
> join them anymore. We virtualization people are to the best of my
> knowledge the only ones doing namespaces. Cgroups, OTOH, got a lot bigger.
>
> What I am mostly concerned about now, is how consistent they will be.
> /proc always being always global indeed does make sense, but my question
> still stands: if you live in a resource-controlled world, why should you
> even see resources you will never own ?
>
>
>> IOW a /proc namespace coupled to cgroup scope would do what you want.
>> Now my head hurts..
>
> Mine too. The idea is good, but too broad. Boils down to: How do you
> couple them? And none of the methods I thought about seemed to make any
> sense.
>
> If we really want to have the values in /proc being opted-in, I think
> Kamezawa's idea of a mount option is the winner so far.
>

Ok:

How about the following patch to achieve this ?
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Add-proc_overlay-option-for-cgroup.patch
URL: <http://lists.openvz.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20111211/89266657/attachment-0001.ksh>