Add experimental host tmpdir support #9308
Draft
+80
−0
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
bduffany
force-pushed
the
ociruntime-host-tmpdir
branch
2 times, most recently
from
8366bb8 to
9015d2d
Compare
bduffany
force-pushed
the
ociruntime-host-tmpdir
branch
from
9015d2d to
88d5476
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR introduces a new
experimental-host-tmpdirplatform property that mounts/tmp/from a directory on the host, in order to avoid I/O overhead from overlayfs. It is intended to help diagnose whether/tmp/FS operations are causing test timeouts. If setting this property reliably fixes test timeouts, we can consider making this an official platform property and/or executor flag. A benchmark writing 10K files under/tmp/withtouchthen reading them back withcat(in batches of 100 files) is 1.5X faster with this property enabled.Separately, it would be nice if we had a way to trace FS operations to answer this question more directly. I think an eBPF-based solution probably makes the most sense here, since cgroups do not provide any way to track FS operations.