mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AgentCgroup: Understanding and Controlling OS Resources of AI Agents

arXiv 2602.09345 ↗First posted 10 Feb 2026cs.OS cs.AIcited by 13

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

AI agents are increasingly deployed in multi-tenant cloud environments, where they execute diverse tool calls within sandboxed containers, each call with distinct resource demands and rapid fluctuations. We present a systematic characterization of OS-level resource dynamics in sandboxed AI coding agents, analyzing 144 software engineering tasks from the SWE-rebench benchmark across two LLM models. Our measurements reveal that (1) OS-level execution (tool calls, container and agent initialization) accounts for 55-60% of end-to-end task latency; (2) memory, not CPU, is the concurrency bottleneck; (3) memory spikes are tool-call-driven with a up to 15.4x peak-to-average ratio; and (4) resource demands are highly unpredictable across tasks, runs, and models. Comparing these characteristics against serverless, microservice, and batch workloads, we identify three mismatches in existing resource controls: a granularity mismatch (container-level policies vs. tool-call-level dynamics), a responsiveness mismatch (user-space reaction vs. sub-second unpredictable bursts), and an adaptability mismatch (history-based prediction vs. non-deterministic stateful execution). We propose AgentCgroup, an intent-driven eBPF-based resource controller that exploits agents ability to declare resource needs and reconstruct execution strategies, using hierarchical cgroup structures aligned with tool-call boundaries, in-kernel enforcement via sched_ext and memcg_bpf_ops, and runtime-adaptive policies. Preliminary evaluation demonstrates improved multi-tenant isolation and reduced resource waste. AgentCgroup is open-source at https://github.com/eunomia-bpf/agentcgroup

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Feb 2026.

Builds on

9 of 39 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Continuum: Efficient and Robust Multi-Turn LLM Agent Scheduling with KV Cache Time-to-Live4 Nov
  2. 2025Efficient and Scalable Agentic AI with Heterogeneous Systems25 Jul

Other references · 7

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  3. 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
  4. 2025The Cost of Dynamic Reasoning: Demystifying AI Agents and Test-Time Scaling from an AI Infrastructure Perspectivecited by 38
  5. 2025AgentSight: System-Level Observability for AI Agents Using eBPFcited by 18
  6. 2025Kairos: Low-latency Multi-Agent Serving with Shared LLMs and Excessive Loads in the Public Cloudcited by 11
  7. 2025Trusted AI Agents in the Cloudcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 13.

13 papers.

Sort:

By area:

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Agentic AI Workload Characteristics
  2. 2026From LLM Inference to Agentic Workloads: Characterization and Implications for Serving Systems
  3. 2026Rethinking AI Cloud Infrastructure for Agentic Serving Systems with the Aries Experimentation Framework
  4. 2026Architectural Implications of Agentic AI Workflows
  5. 2026Memory Compression for High-Fanout Agent Sandboxes
  6. 2026TraceLab: Characterizing Coding Agent Workloads for LLM Serving
  7. 2026AgentSLABench: Evaluating and Benchmarking Agentic Systems Under Resource Constraints
  8. 2026SWE-Marathon: Can Agents Autonomously Complete Ultra-Long-Horizon Software Work?