layered container support #1747
Conversation
likewhatevs
force-pushed
the
layered-container-support-2
branch
from
612f186 to
64f4056
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So AFAICT The changes are:
- Machinery for forwarding cpuset information to the BPF side
- The corresponding BPF code
- Logic that replicates allow_node_aligned but for cpusets.
If this fixes cpuset related problems I think it is reasonable, but I'm not sure about the naming - contianer enable is a bit confusing because containers aren't really a thing at this level of abstraction. Maybe replace "container" with "cpuset-based workloads"? This way it's clear what the code does concretely.
| !(layer->allow_node_aligned && taskc->cpus_node_aligned)) || | ||
| !layer->nr_cpus) { | ||
| !(layer->allow_node_aligned && taskc->cpus_node_aligned)) || | ||
| !(enable_container && taskc->cpus_cpuset_aligned) || |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wrt the bug, maybe wrap lines 1354-1355 in parentheses? && has a higher precedence than || so rn all tasks without cpus_cpuset_aligned are getting put into the fallback queue regardless of the value of tasks->all_cpus_allowed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
think that was it, thanks 1000x for that.
well, part of it, went from exclusively using lo fallback to largely using it.
| @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ enum consts { | |||
| MAX_TASKS = 131072, | |||
| MAX_PATH = 4096, | |||
| MAX_NUMA_NODES = 64, | |||
| MAX_CONTAINERS = 64, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we use cpuset / CPUSET consistently instead of using both container and cpuset and document the implemented behavior in a comment?
likewhatevs
force-pushed
the
layered-container-support-2
branch
from
64f4056 to
495915d
Compare
likewhatevs
force-pushed
the
layered-container-support-2
branch
from
495915d to
33cb330
Compare
I need to debug this because it is still has all tasks going to lo fallback when I run:
https://github.com/likewhatevs/perfstuff/blob/main/noisy-workload.compose.yml
That being said, this does run/pass the verifier and has all the idk components needed to make this work so lmk thoughts on the approach etc.