OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers
Re: [PATCH 6/7] containers (V7): BeanCounters over generic process containers [message #10236 is a reply to message #10235] Tue, 13 February 2007 09:18 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
xemul is currently offline  xemul
Messages: 248
Registered: November 2005
Senior Member
Paul Menage wrote:
> On 2/13/07, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru> wrote:
>> menage@google.com wrote:
>> > This patch implements the BeanCounter resource control abstraction
>> > over generic process containers. It contains the beancounter core
>> > code, plus the numfiles resource counter. It doesn't currently contain
>> > any of the memory tracking code or the code for switching beancounter
>> > context in interrupts.
>>
>> Numfiles is not the most interesting place in beancounters.
>> Kmemsize accounting is much more important actually.
>
> Right, but the memory accouting was a much bigger and more intrusive
> patch than I wanted to include as an example.

I know it, but numfile doesn't show how good this
infrastructure is.

>>
>> I have already pointed out the fact that this place
>> will hurt performance too much. If we have some context
>> on task this context must
>> 1. be get-ed without any locking
>
> Would you also be happy with the restriction that a task couldn't be
> moved in/out of a beancounter container by any task other than itself?

I have implementation that moves arbitrary task :)
May be we can do context (container-on-task) handling lockless?

> If so, the beancounter can_attach() method could simply return false
> if current != tsk, and then you'd not need to worry about locking in
> this situation.

I may not, but this patch contains locking that is not good
even for example.

>> 2. be settable to some temporary one without
>> locking as well
>
> I thought that we solved that problem by having a tmp_bc field in the
> task_struct that would take precedence over the main bc if it was
> non-null?

Of course, but I'm commenting this patchset which doesn't have
this facility.

> Paul
>
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH 2/3] powernow-k8: switch to *_on_cpu() functions
Next Topic: aufs on 64 bit nodes: warnings on compilation
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Sep 07 22:16:32 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.09956 seconds