Skip to content
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

Capture number of IO operations performed with cgroup v2 hierarchy #2967

Closed
iyashu opened this issue May 27, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2968
Closed

Capture number of IO operations performed with cgroup v2 hierarchy #2967

iyashu opened this issue May 27, 2021 · 3 comments · Fixed by #2968
Milestone

Comments

@iyashu
Copy link
Contributor

iyashu commented May 27, 2021

In cgroup v1, GetStats api captures the number of IO operations performed under IoServicedRecursive field of BlkioStats struct. But the same stat is missing with cgroup v2 implementation. As you can see here, we never populate the IoServicedRecursive field for cgroup v2. This resulted in misleading zero valued metrics in kubelet and cadvisor for cgroup v2. As per the cgroup v2 documentation, io.stat file has rios and wios fields denoting the number of read and write operations performed on a device. Let me know if I can add these stats for cgroup v2 as well?

Original cAdvisor Issue - google/cadvisor#2881

@iyashu
Copy link
Contributor Author

iyashu commented May 27, 2021

cc/ @dims @mrunalp @AkihiroSuda

@dims
Copy link
Contributor

dims commented May 27, 2021

@iyashu +1 to ensure the v2 impl faithfully reflects what we get in cgroup v1 impl.

@cyphar cyphar added this to the 1.0.0 milestone May 28, 2021
@cyphar
Copy link
Member

cyphar commented May 28, 2021

I will write a PR for this. Hopefully this will be the last PR for 1.0.0 (I was just getting ready to do the release).

FYI: You don't have to open an issue for fairly minor PRs -- if it's a fairly obvious fix for a regression with Kubernetes, you can just open a PR and we'll review it as-is (in fact we usually do most reviews and design discussions through PRs unless it's really complicated).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants