![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>>>>>Doesnt the ability to move tasks between groups dynamically affect >>>>>(atleast) memory controller design (in giving up ownership etc)?>>>>>>>>we save object owner on the object. So if you change the container, >>>>objects are still correctly charged to the creator and are uncharged >>>>correctly on free.>>>>>>>>>>>>>Seems like the object owner should also change when the object moves >>>from one container to another.> > >>Consider a file which is opened in 2 processes. one of the processes >>wants to move to another container then. How would you decide whether >>to change the file owner or not?>>> > > If a process has sufficient rights to move a file to a new container > then it should be okay to assign the file to the new container. there is no such notion as "rights to move a file to a new container". The same file can be opened in processes belonging to other containers. And you have no any clue whether to have to change the owner or not. > Though the point is, if a resource (like file) is getting migrated to a > new container then all the attributes (like owner, #pages in memory > etc.) attached to that resource (file) should also migrate to this new > container. Otherwise the semantics of where does the resource belong > becomes very difficult. The same for many other resources. It is a big mistake thinking that most resources belong to the processes and the owner process can be easily determined. > And if you really want a resource to not be able to migrate from one > container then we could define IMMUTABLE flag to indicate that behavior. I hope not that one used in ext[23]? :) 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-08-08 09:19 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||