2021-10-14 19:57
IBM 证明,技术NB,企业却做不出NB的产品。廉颇老矣
我和同事们研究了一下,这个好像只是修改了内存占用率的统计结果,并不是造成了内存占用率的降低。所谓的内存占用率变化是原来的统计数据是错的,加了这个cpu_ns后统计数据变正确了。
我的理解是这样,不保证正确。
下面是邮件列表上另一个开发者对这个patch的评价:

Thank your for providing a new approach to this problem and thanks for
summarizing some of the painpoints and current solutions. I do agree
that this is a problem we should tackle in some form.

I have one design comment and one process related comments.

Fundamentally I think making this a new namespace is not the correct
approach. One core feature of a namespace it that it is an opt-in
isolation mechanism: if I do CLONE_NEW* that is when the new isolation
mechanism kicks. The correct reporting through procfs and sysfs is
built into that and we do bugfixes whenever reported information is
wrong.

The cpu namespace would be different; a point I think you're making as
well further above:

> The control and the display interface is fairly disjoint with each
> other. Restrictions can be set through control interfaces like cgroups,

A task wouldn't really opt-in to cpu isolation with CLONE_NEWCPU it
would only affect resource reporting. So it would be one half o
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211009151243.8825-5-psampat@linux.ibm.com/T/

上面是链接,搜reporting
回复 @
{{emojiItem.symbol}}
返回顶部
顶部