[release/7.0] [mono] Determine any memory/CPU limitations from sysfs cgroup #74881
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Add capability to interrogate cgroup limitations when determining CP and memory limits This code has been adapted from coreCLR. It has been modified from C++ but uses the same naming conventions in the event of a unified mechanism that can be shared between both runtimes being developed. The code has been tested on Ubuntu 20.04 and CentOS 7 with cgroupv1 and cgroupv2. This code is required in the event of running runtime in a container as the current limitations being discovered by the mono runtime are purely for the machine and not in a container which may have lower quotas. * src/mono/CMakeLists.txt - Set the HAVE_CGROUP_SUPPORT for Linux hosts * src/mono/cmake/config.h.in - Place holder for HAVE_CGROU_SUPPORT definition * src/mono/mono/metadata/icall.c * src/mono/mono/sgen/sgen-marksweep.c * src/mono/mono/sgen/sgen-simple-nursery.c - Use mono_cpu_limit() instead of mono_cpu_count() * src/mono/mono/utils/CMakeLists.txt - Add mono-cgroup.c to the build * src/mono/mono/utils/memfuncs.c - Call `getRestrictedPhysicalMemoryLimit()` or `getPhyscalMemoryAvail()` * src/mono/mono/utils/memfuncs.h - Add prototypes for the new APIs * src/mono/mono/utils/mono-cgroup.c - Code adapted from coreCLR to interrogate sysfs to determine any limitations on memory or CPU * src/mono/mono/utils/mono-proclib.c - Add call to `getCpuLimit()` * src/mono/mono/utils/mono-proclib.h - Add prototype for the new API
…ssary cast * mono-proclib.c - Explicit cast
github-actions
bot
requested review from
vargaz,
lambdageek,
BrzVlad,
naricc,
thaystg and
marek-safar
as code owners
akoeplinger
changed the title
akoeplinger
approved these changes
Aug 31, 2022
|
@steveisok please approve |
steveisok
approved these changes
Aug 31, 2022
|
@carlossanlop please merge :) |
|
Let's do this! |
ghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Backport of #74237 to release/7.0
/cc @akoeplinger @nealef
Customer Impact
Add capability to interrogate cgroup limitations when determining CP and memory limits
This code has been adapted from coreCLR. It has been modified from C++ but uses the same naming conventions in the event of a unified mechanism that can be shared between both runtimes being developed. The code has been tested on Ubuntu 20.04 and CentOS 7 with cgroupv1 and cgroupv2.
This code is required in the event of running runtime in a container as the current limitations being discovered by the mono runtime are purely for the machine and not in a container which may have lower quotas.
Testing
Tested in main.
Risk
Low, only applies to Mono running on Linux with cgroup limits.
IMPORTANT: Is this backport for a servicing release? If so and this change touches code that ships in a NuGet package, please make certain that you have added any necessary package authoring and gotten it explicitly reviewed.