OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [RFC][PATCH 0/7] Resource controllers based on process containers
Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/7] Account for the number of tasks within container [message #10912 is a reply to message #10906] Wed, 07 March 2007 07:10 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
xemul is currently offline  xemul
Messages: 248
Registered: November 2005
Senior Member
Paul Menage wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> On 3/6/07, Pavel Emelianov <xemul@sw.ru> wrote:
>> diff -upr linux-2.6.20.orig/include/linux/sched.h
>> linux-2.6.20-0/include/linux/sched.h
>> --- linux-2.6.20.orig/include/linux/sched.h 2007-03-06
>> 13:33:28.000000000 +0300
>> +++ linux-2.6.20-0/include/linux/sched.h 2007-03-06
>> 13:33:28.000000000 +0300
>> @@ -1052,6 +1055,9 @@ struct task_struct {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION
>> int make_it_fail;
>> #endif
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PROCESS_CONTAINER
>> + struct numproc_container *numproc_cnt;
>> +#endif
>> };
>
> Why do you need a pointer added to task_struct? One of the main points
> of the generic containers is to avoid every different subsystem and
> resource controller having to add new pointers there.
>
>> +
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + np = numproc_from_cont(task_container(current, &numproc_subsys));
>> + css_get_current(&np->css);
>
> There's no need to hold a reference here - by definition, the task's
> container can't go away while the task is in it.
>
> Also, shouldn't you have an attach() method to move the count from one
> container to another when a task moves?

The idea is:

Task may be "the entity that allocates the resources" and "the
entity that is a resource allocated".

When task is the first entity it may move across containers
(that is implemented in your patches). When task is a resource
it shouldn't move across containers like files or pages do.

More generally - allocated resources hold reference to original
container till they die. No resource migration is performed.

Did I express my idea cleanly?

> 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
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: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem
Next Topic: Linux-VServer example results for sharing vs. separate mappings ...
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Nov 18 15:01:38 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03282 seconds