From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-133.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6032A8460; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 01:53:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.133 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726019624; cv=none; b=UywGRHje9jEfizoEIYo1D2Xd/MnPyPdySNyyVMQpujwfQRrV95dqA6anhA3fAVVZPaE7tgr4jzFhgXK3HNx7hEbDWK9+zfWHcfnlbq7zCEC57STCY8OAHzPJTZ63uowrd8PYsCqYSQDZhCSbx3yYXwxUjfYOcPZm/zBSyZ9GRb4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726019624; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hZDcR8PdFZWl+XiNt3aHWGr4+6Kem637UcITfbJ7k2U=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Message-Id:References:To; b=jfZIC8SlHbYCRhnMEhrIZ7rtSCSoLtekgKMppZXFOFFIA0sJRJS74JFLz5wjUzbwwPsDtEubTgG78qZIEaSwamIg0sOucvv4tl2otjCj9ZJxlFCcfumEC0ugP+DiMBC8fI5qsnUD6S0OkuS0GYZvs+beDXP4rxPzTRpvM+AUCqA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=CyMl7f15; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.133 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="CyMl7f15" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1726019619; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To; bh=hZDcR8PdFZWl+XiNt3aHWGr4+6Kem637UcITfbJ7k2U=; b=CyMl7f15P0XVAAiuM7/uw5FPQUOjH2wO+9eu6cyzetO1IkSLPgovlzk498ulM2jng82DbqnxU73uhnsxwO1gLXcTPcO0Q+CO0/ShrSqII0TEGolo4y7gBSXMwld7MjNibmQk4KliMT4gEaPzbidTKEofZmraSiuz2wfXkFedTwQ= Received: from smtpclient.apple(mailfrom:liusong@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WElvSs1_1726019617) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Wed, 11 Sep 2024 09:53:38 +0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51\)) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched, cgroup: cgroup1 can also take the non-RUNTIME_INF min From: =?utf-8?B?5YiY5bWp?= In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 09:53:27 +0800 Cc: lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, =?utf-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <784F48E6-C07E-4A38-B45B-BD2D66677894@linux.alibaba.com> References: <20240910074832.62536-1-liusong@linux.alibaba.com> To: Tejun Heo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51) > 2024=E5=B9=B49=E6=9C=8811=E6=97=A5 03:32=EF=BC=8CTejun Heo = =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A >=20 > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 03:48:32PM +0800, Liu Song wrote: >> For the handling logic of child_quota, there is no need to = distinguish >> between cgroup1 and cgroup2, so unify the handling logic here. >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Liu Song >=20 > It doens't make much sense to change the interface for cgroup1 at this > point. Let's please leave it as-is. >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > --=20 > tejun Hi In scenarios involving secure shared containers (like Kata), where = containers are deployed on VMs and constrained by CPU runtime using quotas, the concept of vCPUs = comes into play. If the CPU limit set by Kubernetes is less than the actual number of = vCPUs, meaning the CPU count derived from the quota is less than the vCPU count, then when = a user runs lscpu inside the container, the reported CPU count will be greater than the = container's quota. If the user uses this reported count to calculate quota and attempts to = set it for their own sub-container, it will result in an error under cgroup1, whereas the = same operation will succeed under cgroup2. To avoid imposing extra learning costs on users, = unifying the handling logic in this regard is still beneficial. Thanks=