Bug 1854898 - Review Request: uresourced - Dynamically allocate resources to the active user
Summary: Review Request: uresourced - Dynamically allocate resources to the active user
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-07-08 12:24 UTC by Benjamin Berg
Modified: 2020-07-17 00:48 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-07-17 00:48:28 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
zebob.m: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Benjamin Berg 2020-07-08 12:24:20 UTC
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/benzea/uresourced/fedora-32-x86_64/01533466-uresourced/uresourced.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/benzea/uresourced/fedora-32-x86_64/01533466-uresourced/uresourced-0.1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
Description: 
This daemon dynamically assigns a resource allocation to the active
graphical user. If the user has an active graphical session managed
using systemd (e.g. GNOME), then the memory allocation will be used
to protect the sessions core processes (session.slice).

Fedora Account System Username: benzea


See also https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/154

Basically, the idea is to allocate resources to the active user session. Using those resources, it can protect itself (i.e. the core session processes) and it will also get preferential treatment compared to inactive users.

As an example, by default, the active user will receive a 5x larger CPU share compared to an inactive user. They will also receive a 250MiB memory allocation which protects the memory of important session processes from being reclaimed (e.g. swapped out).

Right now it ships appropriate configurations to update a F32 GNOME session to work well with this.

NOTE: The package currently modifies GNOME systemd units. The modifications done are entirely safe, and will not create (transient) issues when upstream GNOME starts adopting similar defaults. Once they are not needed anymore, they can simply be safely removed.

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2020-07-08 13:40:50 UTC
 - Not needed:

Requires(post): systemd
Requires(preun): systemd
Requires(postun): systemd


Package approved.


Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/uresourced/review-
     uresourced/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/systemd/user/gnome-
     launched-.scope.d(gnome-session)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
     systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
     Note: Systemd service file(s) in uresourced
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: uresourced-0.1.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          uresourced-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          uresourced-debugsource-0.1.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
          uresourced-0.1.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
uresourced.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
uresourced.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemd -> systems, system, system d
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-07-08 14:10:21 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uresourced

Comment 3 Fedora Update System 2020-07-08 14:31:50 UTC
FEDORA-2020-f72c87d8dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f72c87d8dd

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2020-07-09 19:58:21 UTC
FEDORA-2020-f72c87d8dd has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f72c87d8dd \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f72c87d8dd

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2020-07-17 00:48:28 UTC
FEDORA-2020-f72c87d8dd has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.