runtime-config-linux: Add a way to disable runtime cgroup manipulation #237
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
So folks can use a different model, if the current linux.resources approach isn't scratching their itch. Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
|
NOTLGTM We are not even done discussion things and you are already opening PRs to change functionality of runtimes implementing the spec |
|
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:41:25AM -0700, Michael Crosby wrote:
I hadn't heard any pushback on “we need a way to disable the runtime's |
|
@wking please don't just throw up PRs when the discussion is not close to a census. |
wking
added a commit
to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 16, 2015
This should help clarify the cgroupsPath setting added in opencontainers#137, which was the subject of some confusion in opencontainers/runc#397. Issues I'm trying to clarify here: * If you specify a cgroupsPath, is the container added to that path or a sub-cgroup underneath it [1]? (This commit rules in favor of "added to that path") * If you specify a cgroupsPath, can the runtime modify that cgroup [2]? (This commit rules "yes, if 'resources' is specified", following [3] and the Go comment from opencontainers#137 [4]). To help make the distinctions clearer, I've added a facet list to help folks think about the difference between cgroup creation, process assignment, and resource configuration. cgroupsPath is just about cgroup creation and process assignment. 'resources' is just about resource configuration. I've listed out Mrunal's first three cases [3] to be even clearer. I stayed away from the "neither are set" case, since I covered that fairly directly in opencontainers#237, which that was punted back to the list [5] and has seen no further interest. So I'm not clear on what the intended semantics are there, although Mrunal's wording in [4] seems to agree with the proposal in opencontainers#237. [1]: opencontainers/runc#397 (comment) [2]: opencontainers/runc#397 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runc#397 (comment) [4]: opencontainers@429f936#diff-34c30be66233f08b447fb608ea0e66bbR30 [5]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/qWHoKs8Fsrk/c9mv6qXtDAAJ Message-ID: <20151029194427.GA30073@odin.tremily.us> Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
This was referenced Nov 16, 2015
wking
added a commit
to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2015
This should help clarify the cgroupsPath setting added in opencontainers#137, which was the subject of some confusion in opencontainers/runc#397. Issues I'm trying to clarify here: * If you specify a cgroupsPath, is the container added to that path or a sub-cgroup underneath it [1]? (This commit rules in favor of "added to that path") * If you specify a cgroupsPath, can the runtime modify that cgroup [2]? (This commit rules "yes, if 'resources' is specified", following [3] and the Go comment from opencontainers#137 [4]). To help make the distinctions clearer, I've added a facet list to help folks think about the difference between cgroup creation, process assignment, and resource configuration. cgroupsPath is just about cgroup creation and process assignment. 'resources' is just about resource configuration. I've listed out Mrunal's first three cases [3] to be even clearer. I stayed away from the "neither are set" case, since I covered that fairly directly in opencontainers#237, which that was punted back to the list [5] and has seen no further interest. So I'm not clear on what the intended semantics are there, although Mrunal's wording in [4] seems to agree with the proposal in opencontainers#237. [1]: opencontainers/runc#397 (comment) [2]: opencontainers/runc#397 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runc#397 (comment) [4]: opencontainers@429f936#diff-34c30be66233f08b447fb608ea0e66bbR30 [5]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/qWHoKs8Fsrk/c9mv6qXtDAAJ Message-ID: <20151029194427.GA30073@odin.tremily.us> Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
wking
added a commit
to wking/opencontainer-runtime-spec
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2015
This should help clarify the cgroupsPath setting added in opencontainers#137, which was the subject of some confusion in opencontainers/runc#397. Issues I'm trying to clarify here: * If you specify a cgroupsPath, is the container added to that path or a sub-cgroup underneath it [1]? (This commit rules in favor of "added to that path") * If you specify a cgroupsPath, can the runtime modify that cgroup [2]? (This commit rules "yes, if 'resources' is specified", following [3] and the Go comment from opencontainers#137 [4]). To help make the distinctions clearer, I've added a facet list to help folks think about the difference between cgroup creation, process assignment, and resource configuration. cgroupsPath is just about cgroup creation and process assignment. 'resources' is just about resource configuration. I've listed out Mrunal's first three cases [3] to be even clearer. I stayed away from the "neither are set" case, since I covered that fairly directly in opencontainers#237, which that was punted back to the list [5] and has seen no further interest. So I'm not clear on what the intended semantics are there, although Mrunal's wording in [4] seems to agree with the proposal in opencontainers#237. [1]: opencontainers/runc#397 (comment) [2]: opencontainers/runc#397 (comment) [3]: opencontainers/runc#397 (comment) [4]: opencontainers@429f936#diff-34c30be66233f08b447fb608ea0e66bbR30 [5]: https://groups.google.com/a/opencontainers.org/d/msg/dev/qWHoKs8Fsrk/c9mv6qXtDAAJ Message-ID: <20151029194427.GA30073@odin.tremily.us> Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
This was referenced Dec 16, 2015
wking
added a commit
to wking/nmbug-oci
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 29, 2015
This allows folks to develop other cgroup managers outside of the
runtimes, which is a prerequisite for cgroup removal [1]. I feel like
there's a consensus on this issue, so I filed a pull-request [2], but
it was punted back to the list [3].
[1]: Message-ID: <CAD2oYtO1RMCcUp52w-xXemzDTs+J6t4hS5Mm4mX+uBnVONGDfA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: removal of cgroups from the OCI Linux spec
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#237
[3]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#237 (comment)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
So folks can use a different model, if the current linux.resources
approach isn't scratching their itch.
For more motivation, see the discussion here.