lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core)
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 14:51 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
    > Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
    > > Kirill,
    > >
    > > IMO, a UBC with resource constraint(limit in this case) should behave no
    > > different than a kernel with limited memory. i.e it should do
    > > reclamation before it starts failing allocation requests. It could even
    > > do it preemptively.
    > first, please notice, that this thread is not about user memory.
    > we can discuss it later when about to control user memory. And
    > I still need to notice, that different models of user memory control
    > can exist. With and without reclamation.
    >
    we can talk about it then :)

    > > There is no guarantee support which is required for providing QoS.
    > where? in UBC? in UBC _there_ are guarentees, even in regard to OOM killer.

    I do not see it in the patches you have submitted. May be I overlooked.
    Can you please point me the code where guarantee is handled.

    >
    > > Each controller modifying the infrastructure code doesn't look good. We
    > > can have proper interfaces to add a new resource controller.
    > controllers do not modify interfaces nor core. They just add
    > themself to the list of resources and setup default limits.
    > do you think it is worth creating infrastructure for these
    > 2 one-line-changes?

    Yes, IMO, it is cleaner.

    Think of the documentation that explains how to write a controller for
    UBC.

    With a proper interface it will read something like: One have to call
    register_controller(char *name) and on success it returns a unique id
    which is the id for the controller.

    Vs

    With changing lines in the core code: One have to edit the file
    filename.c and add a macro to this of macros with an incremented value
    for their controller and add the name of their controller to the array
    named controller_names[].

    I think the first one is cleaner, what do you think ?

    <snip>

    --

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
    - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------


    -
    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: 2006-08-21 22:59    [W:3.614 / U:0.140 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site