On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:55:36 GMT, Severin Gehwolf <sgehw...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Please review this enhancement to the container detection code which allows > it to figure out whether the JVM is actually running inside a container > (`podman`, `docker`, `crio`), or with some other means that enforces > memory/cpu limits by means of the cgroup filesystem. If neither of those > conditions hold, the JVM runs in not containerized mode, addressing the issue > described in the JBS tracker. For example, on my Linux system > `is_containerized() == false" is being indicated with the following trace log > line: > > > [0.001s][debug][os,container] OSContainer::init: is_containerized() = false > because no cpu or memory limit is present > > > This state is being exposed by the Java `Metrics` API class using the new > (still JDK internal) `isContainerized()` method. Example: > > > java -XshowSettings:system --version > Operating System Metrics: > Provider: cgroupv1 > System not containerized. > openjdk 23-internal 2024-09-17 > OpenJDK Runtime Environment (fastdebug build > 23-internal-adhoc.sgehwolf.jdk-jdk) > OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (fastdebug build 23-internal-adhoc.sgehwolf.jdk-jdk, > mixed mode, sharing) > > > The basic property this is being built on is the observation that the cgroup > controllers typically get mounted read only into containers. Note that the > current container tests assert that `OSContainer::is_containerized() == true` > in various tests. Therefore, using the heuristic of "is any memory or cpu > limit present" isn't sufficient. I had considered that in an earlier > iteration, but many container tests failed. > > Overall, I think, with this patch we improve the current situation of > claiming a containerized system being present when it's actually just a > regular Linux system. > > Testing: > > - [x] GHA (risc-v failure seems infra related) > - [x] Container tests on Linux x86_64 of cgroups v1 and cgroups v2 (including > gtests) > - [x] Some manual testing using cri-o > > Thoughts? Anyone willing to review this? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18201#issuecomment-2015043712
