Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:02:06 +0400 | From | Kirill Korotaev <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API) |
| |
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 07:37:26PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > >>+struct user_beancounter >>+{ >>+ atomic_t ub_refcount; >>+ spinlock_t ub_lock; >>+ uid_t ub_uid; >>+ struct hlist_node hash; >>+ >>+ struct user_beancounter *parent; > > > This seems to hint at some heirarchy of ubc? How would that heirarchy be > used? I cant find anything in the patch which forms this heirarchy > (basically I dont see any place where beancounter_findcreate() is called > with non-NULL 2nd arg). yes, it is possible to use hierarchical beancounters. kernel memory, user memory and TCP/IP buffers are accounted hierarchicaly. user interface for this is not provided yet as it would complicate patchset and increase number of topics for discussion :)
> [snip] > > >>+static void init_beancounter_syslimits(struct user_beancounter *ub) >>+{ >>+ int k; >>+ >>+ for (k = 0; k < UB_RESOURCES; k++) >>+ ub->ub_parms[k].barrier = ub->ub_parms[k].limit; > > > This sets barrier to 0. Is this value of 0 interpreted differently by > different controllers? One way to interpret it is "dont allocate any > resource", other way to interpret it is "don't care - give me what you > can" (which makes sense for stuff like CPU and network bandwidth). every patch which adds a resource modifies this function and sets some default limit. Check: [PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core)
Thanks, Kirill
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |