Skip to content

Conversation

@israbbani
Copy link
Contributor

@israbbani israbbani commented Sep 15, 2025

This PR stacks on #56352 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see #54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move the system processes into the system cgroup on startup if resource isolation is enabled.

It introduces the following

  • A new raylet cli arg --system-pids which is a comma-separated string of pids of system processes that are started before the raylet. As of today, it contains
    • On the head node: gcs_server, dashboard_api_server, ray client server, monitor (autoscaler)
    • On every node (including head): process subreaper, log monitor.
  • End-to-end integration tests for resource isolation with the Ray SDK (ray.init) and the Ray CLI (ray --start)

There are a few rough edges (I've added a comment on the PR where relevant):

  1. The construction of ResourceIsolationConfig is spread across multiple call-sites (create the object, add the object store memory, add the system pids). The big positive of doing it this way was to fail fast on invalid user input (in scripts.py and worker.py). I think it needs to have at least two components: the user input (cgroup_path, system_reserved_memory, ...) and the derived input (system_pids, total_system_reserved_memory).
  2. How to determine which processes should be moved? Right now I'm using self.all_processes in node.py. It should contain all processes started so far, but there's no guarantee.
  3. How intrusive should the integration test be? Should we count the number of pids inside the system cgroup? (This was answered in [core] (cgroups 12/n) Raylet will start worker processes in the application cgroup #56549)
  4. How should a user setup multiple nodes on the same VM? I haven't written an integration test for it yet because there are multiple options for how to set this up.

israbbani and others added 30 commits July 24, 2025 20:39
to perform cgroup operations.

Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
instead of clone for older kernel headers < 5.7 (which is what we have
in CI)

Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ibrahim Rabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ibrahim Rabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ibrahim Rabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
@israbbani
Copy link
Contributor Author

@edoakes I addressed all of your comments except for the RAY_CHECK. I'll leave that as a TODO. There are a few more in cgroups 12/n that need to be upgraded too.

@israbbani
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've kicked off MacOS and Windows tests to be extra super duper ultra sure that post-merge won't break. Lets wait for them to pass and I'll ping for merge.

@israbbani
Copy link
Contributor Author

CI post-merge is in bad shape. All failures are unrelated:

  • MacOS C++/Java tests failed due unrelated cpp_tests core c++ and java tests [g16_s8] RAY_INSTALL_JAVA=1 ./ci/ray_ci/macos/macos_ci.sh run_ray_cpp_and_java
  • MacOS python tests failures unrelated core flaky tests [g16_s9] ./ci/ray_ci/macos/macos_ci.sh run_flaky_tests
    • //python/ray/tests:test_object_manager_fault_tolerance FAILED in 3 out of 3 in 41.4s
  • Windows CPP tests failing due to FakeRayClient not compiling
  • Python tests failing due to TIMEOUT: //python/ray/tests:test_reference_counting

@edoakes this should be good to merge.

@edoakes
Copy link
Collaborator

edoakes commented Sep 19, 2025

CI is a little too red for me to be comfortable merging this, don't want to get in the habit of force merging. Let's hold off until test issues are resolved.

@israbbani
Copy link
Contributor Author

Premerge is green. Postmerge-macos is broken for other reasons (#56830). I've merged master and kicked off another premerge.

@edoakes can you merge this if successful?

cursor[bot]

This comment was marked as outdated.

Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
@ray-project ray-project deleted a comment from cursor bot Sep 23, 2025
@edoakes edoakes enabled auto-merge (squash) September 23, 2025 18:13
@github-actions github-actions bot disabled auto-merge September 23, 2025 18:29
@edoakes
Copy link
Collaborator

edoakes commented Sep 23, 2025

@edoakes edoakes merged commit b3860f7 into master Sep 23, 2025
6 checks passed
@edoakes edoakes deleted the irabbani/cgroups-11 branch September 23, 2025 21:52
ZacAttack pushed a commit to ZacAttack/ray that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2025
…n startup (ray-project#56522)

This PR stacks on ray-project#56352 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
ray-project#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move the system processes into the system
cgroup on startup if resource isolation is enabled.

It introduces the following
* A new raylet cli arg `--system-pids` which is a comma-separated string
of pids of system processes that are started before the raylet. As of
today, it contains
* On the head node: gcs_server, dashboard_api_server, ray client server,
monitor (autoscaler)
  * On every node (including head): process subreaper, log monitor.
* End-to-end integration tests for resource isolation with the Ray SDK
(`ray.init`) and the Ray CLI (`ray --start`)

There are a few rough edges (I've added a comment on the PR where
relevant):
1. The construction of ResourceIsolationConfig is spread across multiple
call-sites (create the object, add the object store memory, add the
system pids). The big positive of doing it this way was to fail fast on
invalid user input (in scripts.py and worker.py). I think it needs to
have at least two components: the user input (cgroup_path,
system_reserved_memory, ...) and the derived input (system_pids,
total_system_reserved_memory).
2. How to determine which processes should be moved? Right now I'm using
`self.all_processes` in `node.py`. It _should_ contain all processes
started so far, but there's no guarantee.
3. How intrusive should the integration test be? Should we count the
number of pids inside the system cgroup? (This was answered in ray-project#56549)
4. How should a user setup multiple nodes on the same VM? I haven't
written an integration test for it yet because there are multiple
options for how to set this up.

---------

Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: zac <[email protected]>
elliot-barn pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2025
…n startup (#56522)

This PR stacks on #56352 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move the system processes into the system
cgroup on startup if resource isolation is enabled.

It introduces the following
* A new raylet cli arg `--system-pids` which is a comma-separated string
of pids of system processes that are started before the raylet. As of
today, it contains
* On the head node: gcs_server, dashboard_api_server, ray client server,
monitor (autoscaler)
  * On every node (including head): process subreaper, log monitor.
* End-to-end integration tests for resource isolation with the Ray SDK
(`ray.init`) and the Ray CLI (`ray --start`)

There are a few rough edges (I've added a comment on the PR where
relevant):
1. The construction of ResourceIsolationConfig is spread across multiple
call-sites (create the object, add the object store memory, add the
system pids). The big positive of doing it this way was to fail fast on
invalid user input (in scripts.py and worker.py). I think it needs to
have at least two components: the user input (cgroup_path,
system_reserved_memory, ...) and the derived input (system_pids,
total_system_reserved_memory).
2. How to determine which processes should be moved? Right now I'm using
`self.all_processes` in `node.py`. It _should_ contain all processes
started so far, but there's no guarantee.
3. How intrusive should the integration test be? Should we count the
number of pids inside the system cgroup? (This was answered in #56549)
4. How should a user setup multiple nodes on the same VM? I haven't
written an integration test for it yet because there are multiple
options for how to set this up.

---------

Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: elliot-barn <[email protected]>
edoakes added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2025
…cation cgroup (#56549)

This PR stacks on #56522 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move runtime_env and dashboard agents into
the system cgroup. Workers are now spawned inside the application
cgroup.

It introduces the following:
* I've added a new target `raylet_cgroup_types` which defines the type
used all functions that need to add a process to a cgroup.
* A new parameter is added to `NodeManager`, `WorkerPool`,
`AgentManager`, and `Process` constructors. The parameter is a callback
that will use the CgroupManager to add a process to the respective
cgroup.
* The callback is created in `main.cc`.
* `main.cc` owns CgroupManager because it needs to outlive the
`WorkerPool`.
* `process.c` calls the callback after fork() in the child process so
nothing else can happen in the forked process before it's moved into the
correct cgroup.
* Integration tests in python for end-to-end testing of cgroups with
system and application processes moved into their respective cgroups.
The tests are inside
`python/ray/tests/resource_isolation/test_resource_isolation_integration.py`
and have similar setup/teardown to the C++ integration tests introduced
in #55063.

---------

Signed-off-by: Ibrahim Rabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
marcostephan pushed a commit to marcostephan/ray that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2025
…n startup (ray-project#56522)

This PR stacks on ray-project#56352 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
ray-project#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move the system processes into the system
cgroup on startup if resource isolation is enabled.

It introduces the following
* A new raylet cli arg `--system-pids` which is a comma-separated string
of pids of system processes that are started before the raylet. As of
today, it contains
* On the head node: gcs_server, dashboard_api_server, ray client server,
monitor (autoscaler)
  * On every node (including head): process subreaper, log monitor.
* End-to-end integration tests for resource isolation with the Ray SDK
(`ray.init`) and the Ray CLI (`ray --start`)

There are a few rough edges (I've added a comment on the PR where
relevant):
1. The construction of ResourceIsolationConfig is spread across multiple
call-sites (create the object, add the object store memory, add the
system pids). The big positive of doing it this way was to fail fast on
invalid user input (in scripts.py and worker.py). I think it needs to
have at least two components: the user input (cgroup_path,
system_reserved_memory, ...) and the derived input (system_pids,
total_system_reserved_memory).
2. How to determine which processes should be moved? Right now I'm using
`self.all_processes` in `node.py`. It _should_ contain all processes
started so far, but there's no guarantee.
3. How intrusive should the integration test be? Should we count the
number of pids inside the system cgroup? (This was answered in ray-project#56549)
4. How should a user setup multiple nodes on the same VM? I haven't
written an integration test for it yet because there are multiple
options for how to set this up.

---------

Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Marco Stephan <[email protected]>
marcostephan pushed a commit to marcostephan/ray that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2025
…cation cgroup (ray-project#56549)

This PR stacks on ray-project#56522 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
ray-project#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move runtime_env and dashboard agents into
the system cgroup. Workers are now spawned inside the application
cgroup.

It introduces the following:
* I've added a new target `raylet_cgroup_types` which defines the type
used all functions that need to add a process to a cgroup.
* A new parameter is added to `NodeManager`, `WorkerPool`,
`AgentManager`, and `Process` constructors. The parameter is a callback
that will use the CgroupManager to add a process to the respective
cgroup.
* The callback is created in `main.cc`.
* `main.cc` owns CgroupManager because it needs to outlive the
`WorkerPool`.
* `process.c` calls the callback after fork() in the child process so
nothing else can happen in the forked process before it's moved into the
correct cgroup.
* Integration tests in python for end-to-end testing of cgroups with
system and application processes moved into their respective cgroups.
The tests are inside
`python/ray/tests/resource_isolation/test_resource_isolation_integration.py`
and have similar setup/teardown to the C++ integration tests introduced
in ray-project#55063.

---------

Signed-off-by: Ibrahim Rabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Marco Stephan <[email protected]>
elliot-barn pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 27, 2025
…n startup (#56522)

This PR stacks on #56352 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move the system processes into the system
cgroup on startup if resource isolation is enabled.

It introduces the following
* A new raylet cli arg `--system-pids` which is a comma-separated string
of pids of system processes that are started before the raylet. As of
today, it contains
* On the head node: gcs_server, dashboard_api_server, ray client server,
monitor (autoscaler)
  * On every node (including head): process subreaper, log monitor.
* End-to-end integration tests for resource isolation with the Ray SDK
(`ray.init`) and the Ray CLI (`ray --start`)

There are a few rough edges (I've added a comment on the PR where
relevant):
1. The construction of ResourceIsolationConfig is spread across multiple
call-sites (create the object, add the object store memory, add the
system pids). The big positive of doing it this way was to fail fast on
invalid user input (in scripts.py and worker.py). I think it needs to
have at least two components: the user input (cgroup_path,
system_reserved_memory, ...) and the derived input (system_pids,
total_system_reserved_memory).
2. How to determine which processes should be moved? Right now I'm using
`self.all_processes` in `node.py`. It _should_ contain all processes
started so far, but there's no guarantee.
3. How intrusive should the integration test be? Should we count the
number of pids inside the system cgroup? (This was answered in #56549)
4. How should a user setup multiple nodes on the same VM? I haven't
written an integration test for it yet because there are multiple
options for how to set this up.

---------

Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: elliot-barn <[email protected]>
elliot-barn pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 27, 2025
…cation cgroup (#56549)

This PR stacks on #56522 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move runtime_env and dashboard agents into
the system cgroup. Workers are now spawned inside the application
cgroup.

It introduces the following:
* I've added a new target `raylet_cgroup_types` which defines the type
used all functions that need to add a process to a cgroup.
* A new parameter is added to `NodeManager`, `WorkerPool`,
`AgentManager`, and `Process` constructors. The parameter is a callback
that will use the CgroupManager to add a process to the respective
cgroup.
* The callback is created in `main.cc`.
* `main.cc` owns CgroupManager because it needs to outlive the
`WorkerPool`.
* `process.c` calls the callback after fork() in the child process so
nothing else can happen in the forked process before it's moved into the
correct cgroup.
* Integration tests in python for end-to-end testing of cgroups with
system and application processes moved into their respective cgroups.
The tests are inside
`python/ray/tests/resource_isolation/test_resource_isolation_integration.py`
and have similar setup/teardown to the C++ integration tests introduced
in #55063.

---------

Signed-off-by: Ibrahim Rabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: elliot-barn <[email protected]>
dstrodtman pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2025
…n startup (#56522)

This PR stacks on #56352 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move the system processes into the system
cgroup on startup if resource isolation is enabled.

It introduces the following
* A new raylet cli arg `--system-pids` which is a comma-separated string
of pids of system processes that are started before the raylet. As of
today, it contains
* On the head node: gcs_server, dashboard_api_server, ray client server,
monitor (autoscaler)
  * On every node (including head): process subreaper, log monitor.
* End-to-end integration tests for resource isolation with the Ray SDK
(`ray.init`) and the Ray CLI (`ray --start`)

There are a few rough edges (I've added a comment on the PR where
relevant):
1. The construction of ResourceIsolationConfig is spread across multiple
call-sites (create the object, add the object store memory, add the
system pids). The big positive of doing it this way was to fail fast on
invalid user input (in scripts.py and worker.py). I think it needs to
have at least two components: the user input (cgroup_path,
system_reserved_memory, ...) and the derived input (system_pids,
total_system_reserved_memory).
2. How to determine which processes should be moved? Right now I'm using
`self.all_processes` in `node.py`. It _should_ contain all processes
started so far, but there's no guarantee.
3. How intrusive should the integration test be? Should we count the
number of pids inside the system cgroup? (This was answered in #56549)
4. How should a user setup multiple nodes on the same VM? I haven't
written an integration test for it yet because there are multiple
options for how to set this up.

---------

Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Douglas Strodtman <[email protected]>
dstrodtman pushed a commit to dstrodtman/ray that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2025
…cation cgroup (ray-project#56549)

This PR stacks on ray-project#56522 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
ray-project#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move runtime_env and dashboard agents into
the system cgroup. Workers are now spawned inside the application
cgroup.

It introduces the following:
* I've added a new target `raylet_cgroup_types` which defines the type
used all functions that need to add a process to a cgroup.
* A new parameter is added to `NodeManager`, `WorkerPool`,
`AgentManager`, and `Process` constructors. The parameter is a callback
that will use the CgroupManager to add a process to the respective
cgroup.
* The callback is created in `main.cc`.
* `main.cc` owns CgroupManager because it needs to outlive the
`WorkerPool`.
* `process.c` calls the callback after fork() in the child process so
nothing else can happen in the forked process before it's moved into the
correct cgroup.
* Integration tests in python for end-to-end testing of cgroups with
system and application processes moved into their respective cgroups.
The tests are inside
`python/ray/tests/resource_isolation/test_resource_isolation_integration.py`
and have similar setup/teardown to the C++ integration tests introduced
in ray-project#55063.

---------

Signed-off-by: Ibrahim Rabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Douglas Strodtman <[email protected]>
justinyeh1995 pushed a commit to justinyeh1995/ray that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2025
…n startup (ray-project#56522)

This PR stacks on ray-project#56352 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
ray-project#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move the system processes into the system
cgroup on startup if resource isolation is enabled.

It introduces the following
* A new raylet cli arg `--system-pids` which is a comma-separated string
of pids of system processes that are started before the raylet. As of
today, it contains
* On the head node: gcs_server, dashboard_api_server, ray client server,
monitor (autoscaler)
  * On every node (including head): process subreaper, log monitor.
* End-to-end integration tests for resource isolation with the Ray SDK
(`ray.init`) and the Ray CLI (`ray --start`)

There are a few rough edges (I've added a comment on the PR where
relevant):
1. The construction of ResourceIsolationConfig is spread across multiple
call-sites (create the object, add the object store memory, add the
system pids). The big positive of doing it this way was to fail fast on
invalid user input (in scripts.py and worker.py). I think it needs to
have at least two components: the user input (cgroup_path,
system_reserved_memory, ...) and the derived input (system_pids,
total_system_reserved_memory).
2. How to determine which processes should be moved? Right now I'm using
`self.all_processes` in `node.py`. It _should_ contain all processes
started so far, but there's no guarantee.
3. How intrusive should the integration test be? Should we count the
number of pids inside the system cgroup? (This was answered in ray-project#56549)
4. How should a user setup multiple nodes on the same VM? I haven't
written an integration test for it yet because there are multiple
options for how to set this up.

---------

Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
justinyeh1995 pushed a commit to justinyeh1995/ray that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2025
…cation cgroup (ray-project#56549)

This PR stacks on ray-project#56522 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
ray-project#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move runtime_env and dashboard agents into
the system cgroup. Workers are now spawned inside the application
cgroup.

It introduces the following:
* I've added a new target `raylet_cgroup_types` which defines the type
used all functions that need to add a process to a cgroup.
* A new parameter is added to `NodeManager`, `WorkerPool`,
`AgentManager`, and `Process` constructors. The parameter is a callback
that will use the CgroupManager to add a process to the respective
cgroup.
* The callback is created in `main.cc`.
* `main.cc` owns CgroupManager because it needs to outlive the
`WorkerPool`.
* `process.c` calls the callback after fork() in the child process so
nothing else can happen in the forked process before it's moved into the
correct cgroup.
* Integration tests in python for end-to-end testing of cgroups with
system and application processes moved into their respective cgroups.
The tests are inside
`python/ray/tests/resource_isolation/test_resource_isolation_integration.py`
and have similar setup/teardown to the C++ integration tests introduced
in ray-project#55063.

---------

Signed-off-by: Ibrahim Rabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
landscapepainter pushed a commit to landscapepainter/ray that referenced this pull request Nov 17, 2025
…n startup (ray-project#56522)

This PR stacks on ray-project#56352 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
ray-project#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move the system processes into the system
cgroup on startup if resource isolation is enabled.

It introduces the following
* A new raylet cli arg `--system-pids` which is a comma-separated string
of pids of system processes that are started before the raylet. As of
today, it contains
* On the head node: gcs_server, dashboard_api_server, ray client server,
monitor (autoscaler)
  * On every node (including head): process subreaper, log monitor.
* End-to-end integration tests for resource isolation with the Ray SDK
(`ray.init`) and the Ray CLI (`ray --start`)

There are a few rough edges (I've added a comment on the PR where
relevant):
1. The construction of ResourceIsolationConfig is spread across multiple
call-sites (create the object, add the object store memory, add the
system pids). The big positive of doing it this way was to fail fast on
invalid user input (in scripts.py and worker.py). I think it needs to
have at least two components: the user input (cgroup_path,
system_reserved_memory, ...) and the derived input (system_pids,
total_system_reserved_memory).
2. How to determine which processes should be moved? Right now I'm using
`self.all_processes` in `node.py`. It _should_ contain all processes
started so far, but there's no guarantee.
3. How intrusive should the integration test be? Should we count the
number of pids inside the system cgroup? (This was answered in ray-project#56549)
4. How should a user setup multiple nodes on the same VM? I haven't
written an integration test for it yet because there are multiple
options for how to set this up.

---------

Signed-off-by: irabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
landscapepainter pushed a commit to landscapepainter/ray that referenced this pull request Nov 17, 2025
…cation cgroup (ray-project#56549)

This PR stacks on ray-project#56522 .

For more details about the resource isolation project see
ray-project#54703.

This PR the makes the raylet move runtime_env and dashboard agents into
the system cgroup. Workers are now spawned inside the application
cgroup.

It introduces the following:
* I've added a new target `raylet_cgroup_types` which defines the type
used all functions that need to add a process to a cgroup.
* A new parameter is added to `NodeManager`, `WorkerPool`,
`AgentManager`, and `Process` constructors. The parameter is a callback
that will use the CgroupManager to add a process to the respective
cgroup.
* The callback is created in `main.cc`.
* `main.cc` owns CgroupManager because it needs to outlive the
`WorkerPool`.
* `process.c` calls the callback after fork() in the child process so
nothing else can happen in the forked process before it's moved into the
correct cgroup.
* Integration tests in python for end-to-end testing of cgroups with
system and application processes moved into their respective cgroups.
The tests are inside
`python/ray/tests/resource_isolation/test_resource_isolation_integration.py`
and have similar setup/teardown to the C++ integration tests introduced
in ray-project#55063.

---------

Signed-off-by: Ibrahim Rabbani <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Oakes <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

core Issues that should be addressed in Ray Core go add ONLY when ready to merge, run all tests

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants