On 8/29/17 8:58 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:03:43PM -0600, David Ahern wrote: >> On 8/28/17 10:11 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> >>> Agree on the above, but you're mixing semantics of the new recurse >>> flag and implementation of it. Ex: we don't have to copy this flag >>> from prog->attr into cgroup. So this reset or non-reset discussion >>> only makes sense in the context of your current implementation. >>> We can implement the logic differently. Like don't copy that flag >>> at all and at attach time walk parent->parent->parent and see >>> what programs are attached. All of them should have prog->attr & >>> recurse_bit set >>> In such implementation detach from 'b' is a nop from reset/non-reset >>> point of view. When socket creation in 'c' is invoked the program >>> 'c' is called first then the code keeps walking parents until root >>> invoking 'a' along the way. >> >> So you are suggesting there is no recursive flag per cgroup? How do you >> know you need to walk cgroups? How do you know when to stop running >> programs? > > you're talking about implementation, right? > My 'proposed' implemenation of walking from cgroup all the way to the root > is just an example. It's not efficient. More below... > >>> I'm not saying it will be an efficient implementation. The point >>> is to discuss UAPI independent of implementation. >>> >>>> ### >>>> >>>> Also, let's agree on this intention. Based on the new ground rule, I >>>> want to point out this example: >>>> >>>> If 'a' gets a program installed with no recurse flag set, ONLY processes >>>> in 'a' have the 'a' program run. Processes in groups 'b', 'c' and 'd' >>>> all stop at cgroup 'b' program. >>> >>> I'm proposing that such situation should not be allowed to happen. >>> In a->b->c->d cgroup scenario if override+recurse prog attached to 'b' >>> then only the same override+recurse can be attached to c, d, a. >>> So at detach time there can be gaps (like only 'b' and 'd' have >>> override+recurse progs), but walking up until root from any point >>> will guarantee that only override+recurse programs are seen. >>> >> >> That seems very limiting to me. Seems like you are suggesting the entire >> cgroup tree is recursive or non-recursive, but never a mix. > > Entire cgroup subtree. Yes. It's the simplest uapi I could think of.
So 10 email exchanges later you agree on the UAPI I implemented in this patch: user opts in to recursive behavior via a new flag at attach time, and once a recursive program is installed at some point in the cgroup tree it applies to all descendant cgroups. So all of these exchanges weren't about the UAPI, but your disagreement in my implementation. The only user visible change here is only programs marked recursive are run versus going back to the first cgroup marked non-recursive. > Easy to understand and argue about and I think it's solving your use case. > It's also easily extendable. New combination and features won't break > the users. It feels you're in rush to get this stuff for this merge > window, therefore I want to agree on something that is simple, > non-controversial and extensible. I am in no-rush, but this does not to fall by the wayside like the net namespace specification. Given the pending release of 4.13 net-next will close which gives a 2+ week window to work on v3 before the next merge window. Plenty of time for me to work it into the many other things on my plate.
