-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.1k
8356868: Not all cgroup parameters are made available #25388
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
8356868: Not all cgroup parameters are made available #25388
Conversation
👋 Welcome back cnorrbin! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
@caspernorrbin This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks. ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details. After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:
You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed. At the time when this comment was updated there had been 511 new commits pushed to the
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details. ➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the |
@caspernorrbin The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:
When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command. |
Webrevs
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks fine to me. One suggestion as I think the cpu usage might be 0 and greater.
Co-authored-by: Severin Gehwolf <[email protected]>
Thank you for reviewing! Have changed the check to use |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, though I did have one feedback.
jlong CgroupV1CpuacctController::cpu_usage_in_micros() { | ||
julong cpu_usage; | ||
CONTAINER_READ_NUMBER_CHECKED(reader(), "/cpuacct.usage", "CPU Usage", cpu_usage); | ||
// Output is in nanoseconds, convert to microseconds. | ||
return (jlong)cpu_usage / 1000; | ||
} | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why don't we report the original value in nanos, if it is available?
This is new API, so no-one is using this yet, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I centered it around cgroup v2, which only reports the usage in micros. Cgroup v1 is deprecated for most systems so shouldn't really be used. It made more sense to use micros instead of padding the value most will see with a bunch of zeros.
Thank you for the reviews. With no objections, I'll go ahead and integrate. /integrate |
Going to push as commit 850bc20.
Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts. |
@caspernorrbin Pushed as commit 850bc20. 💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored. |
Hi everyone,
This PR improves cgroup support by exposing additional parameters that are currently not available. These parameters would enable more advanced features that rely on CPU and memory usage data.
The new parameters are:
CPU usage:
cpuacct.usage
(cgroup v1) andcpu.stat
(cgroup v2), which allow precise tracking of consumed CPU time.Peak memory usage:
memory.peak
(cgroup v2). While the cgroup v1 equivalent (memory.max_usage_in_bytes
) was already available, cgroup v2 previously returnedOSCONTAINER_ERROR
— this has now been fixed.Memory throttle limit:
memory.high
(cgroup v2). There is no direct equivalent in cgroup v1, but since most systems use cgroup v2, exposing this parameter enables finer-grained memory control for those systems.Testing:
/test/hotspot/jtreg/containers/
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
git
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25388/head:pull/25388
$ git checkout pull/25388
Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/25388
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25388/head
Using Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 25388
View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 25388
Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25388.diff
Using Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment