| 
		
			| Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/6] containers: Simple CPU accounting container subsystem [message #9596 is a reply to message #9591] | Fri, 12 January 2007 06:24   |  
			| 
				
				
					|  Balbir Singh Messages: 491
 Registered: August 2006
 | Senior Member |  |  |  
	| Paul Menage wrote: > On 1/10/07, Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com> wrote:
 >> I have run into a problem running this patch on a powerpc box. Basically,
 >> the machine panics as soon as I mount the container filesystem with
 >
 > This is a multi-processor system?
 
 Yes, it has 4 cpus
 
 >
 > My guess is that it's a race in the subsystem API that I've been
 > meaning to deal with for some time - basically I've been using
 > (<foo>_subsys.subsys_id != -1) to indicate that <foo> is ready for
 > use, but there's a brief window during subsystem registration where
 > that's not actually true.
 >
 > I'll add an "active" field in the container_subsys structure, which
 > isn't set until registration is completed, and subsystems should use
 > that instead. container_register_subsys() will set it just prior to
 > releasing callback_mutex, and cpu_acct.c (and other subsystems) will
 > check <foo>_subsys.active rather than (<foo>_subsys.subsys_id != -1)
 >
 
 I tried something similar, I added an activated field, which is set
 to true when the ->create() callback is invoked. That did not help
 either, the machine still panic'ed.
 
 >> I am trying to figure out the reason for the panic and trying to find
 >> a fix. Since the introduction of whole hierarchy system, the debugging
 >> has gotten a bit harder and taking longer, hence I was wondering if you
 >> had any clues about the problem
 >>
 >
 > Yes, the multi-hierarchy support does make the whole code a little
 > more complex - but people presented reasonable scenarios where a
 > single container tree for all resource controllers just wasn't
 > flexible enough.
 >
 
 I see the need for it, but I wonder if we should start with that
 right away. I understand that people might want to group cpusets
 differently from their grouping of let's say the cpu resource
 manager. I would still prefer to start with one hierarchy and then
 move to multiple hierarchies. I am concerned that adding complexity
 upfront might turn off people from using the infrastructure.
 
 > Paul
 
 
 --
 
 Balbir Singh,
 Linux Technology Center,
 IBM Software Labs
 |  
	|  |  |