OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 0/6] containers: Generic Process Containers (V6)
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 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Balbir Singh is currently offline  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
 
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 00/12] net namespace : L3 namespace - introduction
Next Topic: [PATCH 2/2] Explicitly set pgid/sid of init
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Sep 30 02:22:14 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03563 seconds