DOCSLIB.ORG

Multicore Operating-System Support for Mixed Criticality∗

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Multicore Operating-System Support for Mixed Criticality∗ Multicore Operating-System Support for Mixed Criticality∗ James H. Anderson, Sanjoy K. Baruah, and Bjorn¨ B. Brandenburg The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Abstract Different criticality levels provide different levels of assurance against failure. In current avionics designs, Ongoing research is discussed on the development of highly-critical software is kept physically separate from operating-system support for enabling mixed-criticality less-critical software. Moreover, no currently deployed air- workloads to be supported on multicore platforms. This craft uses multicore processors to host highly-critical tasks work is motivated by avionics systems in which such work- (more precisely, if multicore processors are used, and if loads occur. In the mixed-criticality workload model that is such a processor hosts highly-critical applications, then all considered, task execution costs may be determined using but one of its cores are turned off). These design decisions more-stringent methods at high criticality levels, and less- are largely driven by certification issues. For example, cer- stringent methods at low criticality levels. The main focus tifying highly-critical components becomes easier if poten- of this research effort is devising mechanisms for providing tially adverse interactions among components executing on “temporal isolation” across criticality levels: lower levels different cores through shared hardware such as caches are should not adversely “interfere” with higher levels. simply “defined” not to occur. Unfortunately, hosting an overall workload as described here clearly wastes process- ing resources. 1 Introduction In this paper, we propose operating-system infrastruc- ture that allows applications of different criticalities to be The evolution of computational frameworks for avionics co-hosted on a multicore platform. Our specific focus is systems is being impacted by two trends. First, such frame- ensuring real-time correctness. We assume that criticalities works are becoming increasingly complex. While this is are defined as in the RTCA DO-178B software standard, generally true, a particularly good case in point is next- which specifies five criticality levels, as listed in Table 1 (a generation unmanned systems, where complex decision- more thorough discussion of criticalities is given later). We making software must be used to perform pilot functions. further assume that the workload to be supported is speci- Second, there is increasing pressure to host such complex fied as a collection of periodic tasks with harmonic periods. systems using hardware platforms that require less weight The OS development platform used in our work is and volume. a UNC-produced open-source system called LITMUSRT These trends are occurring at a time when multicore (LInux Testbed for MUltiprocessor Scheduling in Real- chip designs have replaced single-core designs in the prod- Time systems) [7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 26]. LITMUSRTis an uct lines of most chip manufacturers. This development extension of Linux (currently, version 2.6.24) that allows is profound, as it means that multiprocessors are now a different (multiprocessor) real-time scheduling algorithms “common-case” platform that will be used across a wide to be linked at runtime as plug-in components. Relevant range of application domains. In the avionics domain, details regarding LITMUSRT, as well as our rationale in multicore platforms offer the potential of enabling greater choosing it as a development platform, are given later. The computational capabilities in less space. Unfortunately, main focus of this paper is to report on the status of our im- currently-used avionics operating systems do not provide plementation efforts in extending LITMUSRT to support sufficient functionality to allow applications of varying crit- multi-criticality workloads on multicore platforms. We icalities to be co-hosted on a multicore platform. In this also more broadly discuss some of the challenges inherent paper, we discuss ongoing research that is being conducted in supporting such workloads. to address this issue. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, ∗ we provide relevant background material and discuss re- Work supported by IBM, Intel, and Sun Corps.; NSF grants CNS RT 0834270, CNS 0834132, and CNS 0615197; and ARO grant W911NF- lated work. In Sec. 3, we describe the LITMUS -based 06-1-0425. implementation efforts mentioned above. In Sec. 4, we Level Failure Condition Interpretation A Catastrophic Failure may cause a crash. B Hazardous Failure has a large negative impact on safety or performance, or reduces the abil- ity of the crew to operate the plane due to physical distress or a higher workload, or causes serious or fatal injuries among the passengers. C Major Failure is significant, but has a lesser impact than a Hazardous failure (for exam- ple, leads to passenger discomfort rather than injuries). D Minor Failure is noticeable, but has a lesser impact than a Major failure (for example, causing passenger inconvenience or a routine flight plan change). E No Effect Failure has no impact on safety, aircraft operation, or crew workload. Table 1: DO-178B is a software development process standard, Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certifica- tion, published by RTCA, Inc. The United States Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) accepts the use of DO-178B as a means of certifying software in avionics applications. RTCA DO-178B assigns criticality levels to tasks categorized by effects on commercial aircraft. discuss a number of future extensions to the system being deadlines can never be missed, while in a soft real-time built. We conclude in Sec. 5. (SRT) system, some misses are tolerable. SRT schedula- bility can be defined in different ways; we assume here that a SRT system is schedulable if deadline tardiness is 2 Background bounded (by a reasonably small constant). In determining schedulability (hard or soft), the processor share required In the following subsections, we present relevant back- by each task T is of importance. The share required by T ground information on multiprocessor real-time schedul- is given by the quantity T:u = T:e=T:p, which is called its ing, multi-criticality scheduling, and scheduling ap- utilization. proaches for ensuring temporal isolation. We also present a brief overview of the LITMUSRTsystem being used in our research. With regard to scheduling, two kinds of algorithms ac- tually are of interest: algorithms used within an OS to 2.1 Multiprocessor Real-Time Scheduling make scheduling decisions (of course) and algorithms used to test schedulability (i.e., timing correctness). The lat- When designing a real-time application, the goal is to pro- ter algorithm is necessarily dependent on the former. In duce a schedulable system, i.e., one whose timing con- the multiprocessor case, a scheduling algorithm may fol- straints can be guaranteed. Timing constraints are usu- low a partitioning or global scheduling approach (or some ally expressed using deadlines. In this paper, we con- combination of the two): under partitioning, tasks are stat- sider a well-studied task model in which such notions arise, ically assigned to processors, while under global schedul- namely the periodic task model [20]. In this model, the ing, they are scheduled from a single run queue and may scheduled system is comprised of a collection of recurring migrate among processors. An example of a partition- sequential tasks. Each such task T releases a succession of ing algorithm is partitioned EDF (P-EDF), which uses jobs and is defined by specifying a period T:p and an ex- the uniprocessor earliest-deadline-first (EDF) algorithm as ecution cost T:e. Successive jobs of T are released every the per-processor scheduler. An example of a global algo- T:p time units, starting at time 0, and one that is released rithm is global EDF (G-EDF), under which tasks are EDF- at time t has a deadline at time t + T:p. Also, each such scheduled using a single priority queue. In this paper, P- job executes for at most T:e time units and its required pro- EDF and EDF are considered extensively. In addition, we cessing time should be allocated between its release and consider the cyclic executive approach, wherein scheduling deadline. In this paper, we make the simplifying assump- decisions are statically pre-determined offline and specified tion that task periods are harmonic. This means that, for in a dispatching table [2]. If task periods are harmonic, then any two tasks T and U, if T:p < U:p, then U:p is an integer the required dispatching table requires pseudo-polynomial multiple of T:p. In avionics systems, task periods are often space. In avionics and other safety-critical domains, the harmonic. cyclic executive approach is often preferred, because dis- Real-time schedulability. In the periodic model, the def- patching tables (once constructed) are relatively easy to inition of the term “schedulable” depends on whether dead- certify as correct. In the case of cyclic executives, we as- lines are hard or soft. In a hard real-time (HRT) system, sume partitioned scheduling (one dispatching table per pro- cessor). Global vs. partitioned scheduling. Generally speaking, “reclaimed” at system design time itself, and can be used partitioning algorithms are preferable for HRT workloads, for guaranteeing deadline compliance of lower-criticality and global algorithms are preferable for SRT workloads. If tasks. The multi-criticality task model is remarkably pow- all deadlines are hard, or if partitioning or static-priority erful and expressive. For instance, in order to obtain a scheduling is used, then restrictive caps on overall uti- WCET bound for a task at a higher level of assurance (i.e., lization (of up to half the system’s processing capacity) at a degree of confidence corresponding to a higher critical- must be enforced to ensure that real-time constraints are ity), it is typically necessary to limit the kinds of program- met [16].1 Because such caps are unavoidable in the ming constructs that may be used in that task (loops, for HRT case, partitioning approaches tend to be better be- example, may be required to have static bounds).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Security Assurance Requirements for Linux Application Container Deployments
    NISTIR 8176 Security Assurance Requirements for Linux Application Container Deployments Ramaswamy Chandramouli This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8176 NISTIR 8176 Security Assurance Requirements for Linux Application Container Deployments Ramaswamy Chandramouli Computer Security Division Information Technology Laboratory This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8176 October 2017 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Walter Copan, NIST Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology NISTIR 8176 SECURITY ASSURANCE FOR LINUX CONTAINERS National Institute of Standards and Technology Internal Report 8176 37 pages (October 2017) This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8176 Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. This p There may be references in this publication to other publications currently under development by NIST in accordance with its assigned statutory responsibilities. The information in this publication, including concepts and methodologies, may be used by federal agencies even before the completion of such companion publications. Thus, until each ublication is available free of charge from: http publication is completed, current requirements, guidelines, and procedures, where they exist, remain operative. For planning and transition purposes, federal agencies may wish to closely follow the development of these new publications by NIST.
    [Show full text]
  • Container and Kernel-Based Virtual Machine (KVM) Virtualization for Network Function Virtualization (NFV)
    Container and Kernel-Based Virtual Machine (KVM) Virtualization for Network Function Virtualization (NFV) White Paper August 2015 Order Number: 332860-001US YouLegal Lines andmay Disclaimers not use or facilitate the use of this document in connection with any infringement or other legal analysis concerning Intel products described herein. You agree to grant Intel a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to any patent claim thereafter drafted which includes subject matter disclosed herein. No license (express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise) to any intellectual property rights is granted by this document. All information provided here is subject to change without notice. Contact your Intel representative to obtain the latest Intel product specifications and roadmaps. The products described may contain design defects or errors known as errata which may cause the product to deviate from published specifications. Current characterized errata are available on request. Copies of documents which have an order number and are referenced in this document may be obtained by calling 1-800-548-4725 or by visiting: http://www.intel.com/ design/literature.htm. Intel technologies’ features and benefits depend on system configuration and may require enabled hardware, software or service activation. Learn more at http:// www.intel.com/ or from the OEM or retailer. Results have been estimated or simulated using internal Intel analysis or architecture simulation or modeling, and provided to you for informational purposes. Any differences in your system hardware, software or configuration may affect your actual performance. For more complete information about performance and benchmark results, visit www.intel.com/benchmarks. Tests document performance of components on a particular test, in specific systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Containerization Introduction to Containers, Docker and Kubernetes
    Containerization Introduction to Containers, Docker and Kubernetes EECS 768 Apoorv Ingle [email protected] Containers • Containers – lightweight VM or chroot on steroids • Feels like a virtual machine • Get a shell • Install packages • Run applications • Run services • But not really • Uses host kernel • Cannot boot OS • Does not need PID 1 • Process visible to host machine Containers • VM vs Containers Containers • Container Anatomy • cgroup: limit the use of resources • namespace: limit what processes can see (hence use) Containers • cgroup • Resource metering and limiting • CPU • IO • Network • etc.. • $ ls /sys/fs/cgroup Containers • Separate Hierarchies for each resource subsystem (CPU, IO, etc.) • Each process belongs to exactly 1 node • Node is a group of processes • Share resource Containers • CPU cgroup • Keeps track • user/system CPU • Usage per CPU • Can set weights • CPUset cgroup • Reserve to CPU to specific applications • Avoids context switch overheads • Useful for non uniform memory access (NUMA) Containers • Memory cgroup • Tracks pages used by each group • Pages can be shared across groups • Pages “charged” to a group • Shared pages “split the cost” • Set limits on usage Containers • Namespaces • Provides a view of the system to process • Controls what a process can see • Multiple namespaces • pid • net • mnt • uts • ipc • usr Containers • PID namespace • Processes within a PID namespace see only process in the same namespace • Each PID namespace has its own numbering staring from 1 • Namespace is killed when PID 1 goes away
    [Show full text]
  • Control Groups (Cgroups)
    System Programming for Linux Containers Control Groups (cgroups) Michael Kerrisk, man7.org © 2020 [email protected] February 2020 Outline 19 Cgroups 19-1 19.1 Introduction to cgroups v1 and v2 19-3 19.2 Cgroups v1: hierarchies and controllers 19-17 19.3 Cgroups v1: populating a cgroup 19-24 19.4 Cgroups v1: release notification 19-33 19.5 Cgroups v1: a survey of the controllers 19-43 19.6 Cgroups /procfiles 19-65 19.7 Cgroup namespaces 19-68 Outline 19 Cgroups 19-1 19.1 Introduction to cgroups v1 and v2 19-3 19.2 Cgroups v1: hierarchies and controllers 19-17 19.3 Cgroups v1: populating a cgroup 19-24 19.4 Cgroups v1: release notification 19-33 19.5 Cgroups v1: a survey of the controllers 19-43 19.6 Cgroups /procfiles 19-65 19.7 Cgroup namespaces 19-68 Goals Cgroups is a big topic Many controllers V1 versus V2 interfaces Our goal: understand fundamental semantics of cgroup filesystem and interfaces Useful from a programming perspective How do I build container frameworks? What else can I build with cgroups? And useful from a system engineering perspective What’s going on underneath my container’s hood? System Programming for Linux Containers ©2020, Michael Kerrisk Cgroups 19-4 §19.1 Focus We’ll focus on: General principles of operation; goals of cgroups The cgroup filesystem Interacting with the cgroup filesystem using shell commands Problems with cgroups v1, motivations for cgroups v2 Differences between cgroups v1 and v2 We’ll look briefly at some of the controllers System Programming for Linux Containers ©2020, Michael Kerrisk Cgroups 19-5 §19.1
    [Show full text]
  • A Container-Based Approach to OS Specialization for Exascale Computing
    A Container-Based Approach to OS Specialization for Exascale Computing Judicael A. Zounmevo∗, Swann Perarnau∗, Kamil Iskra∗, Kazutomo Yoshii∗, Roberto Gioiosay, Brian C. Van Essenz, Maya B. Gokhalez, Edgar A. Leonz ∗Argonne National Laboratory fjzounmevo@, perarnau@mcs., iskra@mcs., [email protected] yPacific Northwest National Laboratory. [email protected] zLawrence Livermore National Laboratory. fvanessen1, maya, [email protected] Abstract—Future exascale systems will impose several con- view is essential for scalability, enabling compute nodes to flicting challenges on the operating system (OS) running on manage and optimize massive intranode thread and task par- the compute nodes of such machines. On the one hand, the allelism and adapt to new memory technologies. In addition, targeted extreme scale requires the kind of high resource usage efficiency that is best provided by lightweight OSes. At the Argo introduces the idea of “enclaves,” a set of resources same time, substantial changes in hardware are expected for dedicated to a particular service and capable of introspection exascale systems. Compute nodes are expected to host a mix of and autonomic response. Enclaves will be able to change the general-purpose and special-purpose processors or accelerators system configuration of nodes and the allocation of power tailored for serial, parallel, compute-intensive, or I/O-intensive to different nodes or to migrate data or computations from workloads. Similarly, the deeper and more complex memory hierarchy will expose multiple coherence domains and NUMA one node to another. They will be used to demonstrate nodes in addition to incorporating nonvolatile RAM. That the support of different levels of fault tolerance—a key expected workload and hardware heterogeneity and complexity concern of exascale systems—with some enclaves handling is not compatible with the simplicity that characterizes high node failures by means of global restart and other enclaves performance lightweight kernels.
    [Show full text]
  • Cgroups Py: Using Linux Control Groups and Systemd to Manage CPU Time and Memory
    cgroups py: Using Linux Control Groups and Systemd to Manage CPU Time and Memory Curtis Maves Jason St. John Research Computing Research Computing Purdue University Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana, USA West Lafayette, Indiana, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—cgroups provide a mechanism to limit user and individual resource. 1 Each directory in a cgroupsfs hierarchy process resource consumption on Linux systems. This paper represents a cgroup. Subdirectories of a directory represent discusses cgroups py, a Python script that runs as a systemd child cgroups of a parent cgroup. Within each directory of service that dynamically throttles users on shared resource systems, such as HPC cluster front-ends. This is done using the the cgroups tree, various files are exposed that allow for cgroups kernel API and systemd. the control of the cgroup from userspace via writes, and the Index Terms—throttling, cgroups, systemd obtainment of statistics about the cgroup via reads [1]. B. Systemd and cgroups I. INTRODUCTION systemd A frequent problem on any shared resource with many users Systemd uses a named cgroup tree (called )—that is that a few users may over consume memory and CPU time. does not impose any resource limits—to manage processes When these resources are exhausted, other users have degraded because it provides a convenient way to organize processes in access to the system. A mechanism is needed to prevent this. a hierarchical structure. At the top of the hierarchy, systemd creates three cgroups By placing throttles on physical memory consumption and [2]: CPU time for each individual user, cgroups py prevents re- source exhaustion on a shared system and ensures continued • system.slice: This contains every non-user systemd access for other users.
    [Show full text]
  • Kvm – Kernel Based Virtual Machine
    KVM – KERNEL BASED VIRTUAL MACHINE BACKGROUND Virtualization has begun to transform the way that enterprises are deploying and managing their infrastructure, providing the foundation for a truly agile enterprise, so that IT can deliver an infrastructure that is flexible, scalable, and most importantly economical by efficiently utilizing resources. 10 years ago virtualization was unheard of in the x86 market it was reserved for mainframe and high end UNIX systems. Over the last 3 to 4 years there has been exponential growth in the virtualization market both in terms of customer adoption and in terms of the rise of the number vendors in the virtualization space; from new hypervisor vendors to virtualization management vendors too numerous to mention. VIRTUALIZING THE X86 ARCHITECTURE The x86 architecture has proven to be the dominate platform in enterprise computing, moving from its humble beginnings in desktop systems to now, powering the large enterprise applications that run businesses across the globe. The current generation of x86 CPUs include features such as large scale multi-threading with 8 or more processing cores, support for large memory systems with NUMA and integrated memory controllers, high speed CPU interconnects and chipset for support for advanced reliability, availability and serviceability (RAS) features. These features were once reserved for mainframe and high end UNIX systems, today x86 servers with 2 or 4 sockets are replacing expensive UNIX/RISC systems while delivering better performance and 4 and 8 socket servers are challenging mainframe class systems. While the x86 platform has evolved significantly over it's lifetime it has maintained it's core architecture to provide backward compatibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtualization-Based Approaches for Mitigation of Malware Threats
    ABSTRACT WU, CHIACHIH. Virtualization-Based Approaches for Mitigation of Malware Threats. (Under the direction of Xuxian Jiang.) Modern computer systems consist of a number of software layers to provide efficient resource management, secure isolation, and convenient environment for program development and ex- ecution. The hypervisor virtualizes multiple instances of hardware for guest operating systems or another layer of hypervisors with strong isolation between the virtualized hardware instances. Running directly on hardware, physical or virtualized, the operating systems (OSs) provide efficient resource management and a convenient set of interface for applications to access the hardware resource including CPU. In addition, the OS regulates each application with virtual memory, user identification, file permissions, etc. such that a non-privileged application cannot interact with other applications or access privileged files without gaining the corresponding permissions. One level above the OS, the runtime libraries and system daemons help applications to communicate with the OS in an easier manner. Each software layer has various software bugs and design flaws such that the secure isolation could be broken through. This motivates our research of securing different software layers with a series of virtualization-based approaches. In this dissertation, we firstly present an OS-level virtualization system, AirBag, to improve Android architecture in the aspect of malware defense and analysis for dealing with flaws in Android runtime environment. AirBag allows users to “test” untrusted apps in an isolated Android runtime environment without private data leakage, system files corruption, and more severe damages such as sending SMSs to premium numbers. Besides, users can “profile” untrusted apps in the instrumented isolated Android runtime, which improves the capabilities of dynamic analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Cgroups) (Plus Some Systemd Evangelizing) Who Am I?
    An introduction to Control Groups (cgroups) (plus some systemd evangelizing) Who am I? Jonathan maw (not James Thomas) [email protected] Responsibilities: ● GENIVI Node Startup Controller ● AGL Distro OS/Common Libs maintainer Automotive experience: since June 2012 cgroup experience: since Sep 01 2015 What are cgroups? /sys/fs/cgroup/ … ↳blkio hierarchical grouping of processes managed by the linux ↳cpu kernel, and exposed through a special filesystem ↳memory ↳net_cls # cat /sys/fs/cgroup/systemd/system.slice/ssh.service/tasks ↳systemd 622 … ↳user.slice ↳system.slice (systemd-cgls) … ↳ssh.service ↳cgroup.clone_children ↳cgroup.procs ↳notify_on_release ↳tasks Why use cgroups? /sys/fs/cgroup/ … ↳blkio subsystems/controllers ↳cpu https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cgroups/ ↳memory ↳devices Lots of features, the most useful ones I see: ↳systemd ● Control memory usage … ● Control how much CPU time is allocated ↳user.slice ● Control how much device I/O is allowed ↳system.slice ● Control which devices can be accessed … ↳ssh.service Horror story: memory leak in browser kills system ↳cgroup.clone_children ↳cgroup.procs ↳notify_on_release ↳tasks Why I’d recommend systemd Systemd uses cgroups to organise processes (each service is a cgroup, and all processes started by that service use that cgroup) Systemd handles blkio, cpu, device, and memory accounting for you (http://man7. org/linux/man-pages/man5/systemd.cgroup.5.html) [Service] ExecStart=/bin/foo MemoryAccounting=true MemoryLimit=400K (also systemd-cgtop, systemd-cgls) Demonstration
    [Show full text]
  • Cgroups? Why Use Cgroups? How Is Cgroups Implemented? Subsystems Cgroup filesystem Cgroup Hierarchy
    Ressource Management in Linux with Control Groups Linux-Kongress 2010 Stefan Seyfried <[email protected]> B1 Systems GmbH http://www.b1-systems.de Friday, 2010-09-24 c B1 Systems GmbH 2006 – 2010 Chapter -1, Slide 1 Control Groups Workshop Agenda c B1 Systems GmbH 2006 – 2010 Chapter 0, Slide 1 Agenda What are cgroups? Why use cgroups? How is cgroups implemented? Subsystems cgroup filesystem cgroup hierarchy c B1 Systems GmbH 2006 – 2010 Chapter 0, Slide 2 Agenda cgroup filesystem Overview cgroups Subsystems Group CPU Scheduler CPU Accounting Controller Cpuset Memory Block IO Controller Device Whitelist Controller Freezer Namespace c B1 Systems GmbH 2006 – 2010 Chapter 0, Slide 3 Agenda libcgroup Exercises / Demonstration of various cgroups setups c B1 Systems GmbH 2006 – 2010 Chapter 0, Slide 4 Chapter: What Are Cgroups? What Are Cgroups? c B1 Systems GmbH 2006 – 2010 Chapter 1, Slide 5 What Are Cgroups? Control Groups generic process-grouping framework in Linux Kernel (since 2.6.24) CONFIG_CGROUPS c B1 Systems GmbH 2006 – 2010 Chapter 1, Slide 6 Definitions task Userspace or kernel process cgroup One or more tasks subsystem Module to modify the behavior of the tasks in a cgroup hierarchy Several cgroups in a tree c B1 Systems GmbH 2006 – 2010 Chapter 1, Slide 7 Chapter: Why Use Cgroups? Why Use Cgroups? c B1 Systems GmbH 2006 – 2010 Chapter 2, Slide 8 Why Use Cgroups? How to Control the Vast Amount of Resources of Today’s Platforms? CPUs have multiple cores, usually machines are SMP platforms "many cores" More and more memory c B1 Systems GmbH 2006 – 2010 Chapter 2, Slide 9 Why Use Cgroups? How to Control Resources? Virtual Machines Containers ..
    [Show full text]
  • Cgroups, Containers and Htcondor, Oh My
    Cgroups, containers and HTCondor, oh my Center for High Throughput Computing Outline › Why put contain jobs? › Ersatz HTCondor containment › Docker containers › Singularity containers 2 3 Protections 1) Protect the machine from the job. 2) Protect the job from the machine. 3) Protect one job from another. 3 The ideal container › Allows nesting › Need not require root › Can’t be broken out of › Portable to all OSes › Allows full management: Creation // Destruction Monitoring Limiting 4 Resources a job can (ab)use CPU Memory Disk Network Signals L1-2-3 cache 5 HTCondor’s containment 6 PID namespaces › You can’t kill what you can’t see › Requirements: RHEL 6 or later USE_PID_NAMESPACES = true • (off by default) Must be root 7 PID Namespaces Init (1) Master (pid 15) Startd (pid 26) Starter (pid 73) Starter (pid 39) Condor_init (pid 1) Condor_init (pid 1) Job A (pid 2) Job B (pid 2) 8 MOUNT_UNDER_SCRATCH › Or, “Shared subtrees” › Goal: protect /tmp from shared jobs › Requires Condor 8.0+ RHEL 5 HTCondor must be running as root MOUNT_UNDER_SCRATCH = /tmp,/var/tmp 9 MOUNT_UNDER_SCRATCH MOUNT_UNDER_SCRATCH=/tmp,/var/tmp Each job sees private /tmp, /var/tmp Downsides: No sharing of files in /tmp 10 Control Groups aka “cgroups” › Two basic kernel abstractions: 1) nested groups of processes 2) “controllers” which limit resources 11 Control Cgroup setup › Implemented as filesystem Mounted on /sys/fs/cgroup, Groups are per controller • E.g. /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/my_group • /sys/fs/cgroup/cpu/my_group Interesting contents of virtual groups: • /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/my_group/tasks
    [Show full text]
  • Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Managing, Monitoring and Updating the Kernel
    Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Managing, monitoring and updating the kernel A guide to managing the Linux kernel on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Last Updated: 2019-11-05 Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Managing, monitoring and updating the kernel A guide to managing the Linux kernel on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Legal Notice Copyright © 2019 Red Hat, Inc. The text of and illustrations in this document are licensed by Red Hat under a Creative Commons Attribution–Share Alike 3.0 Unported license ("CC-BY-SA"). An explanation of CC-BY-SA is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ . In accordance with CC-BY-SA, if you distribute this document or an adaptation of it, you must provide the URL for the original version. Red Hat, as the licensor of this document, waives the right to enforce, and agrees not to assert, Section 4d of CC-BY-SA to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. Red Hat, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the Shadowman logo, the Red Hat logo, JBoss, OpenShift, Fedora, the Infinity logo, and RHCE are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. Linux ® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the United States and other countries. Java ® is a registered trademark of Oracle and/or its affiliates. XFS ® is a trademark of Silicon Graphics International Corp. or its subsidiaries in the United States and/or other countries. MySQL ® is a registered trademark of MySQL AB in the United States, the European Union and other countries.
    [Show full text]