Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API)

[Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>]

> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 07:37:26PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>
> > +struct user_beancounter
> > +{
> > +	atomic_t		ub_refcount;
> > +	spinlock_t		ub_lock;
> > +	uid_t			ub_uid;
> > +	struct hlist_node	hash;
> > +
> > +	struct user_beancounter	*parent;
>
>
> This seems to hint at some heirarchy of ubc? How would that heirarchy be
> used? I cant find anything in the patch which forms this heirarchy
> (basically I dont see any place where beancounter_findcreate() is called
> with non-NULL 2nd arg).
yes, it is possible to use hierarchical beancounters.
kernel memory, user memory and TCP/IP buffers are accounted hierarchicaly.
user interface for this is not provided yet as it would complicate patchset
and increase number of topics for discussion :)

> [snip]
>
>
> > +static void init_beancounter_syslimits(struct user_beancounter *ub)
> > +{
> > +	int k;
> > +
> > +	for (k = 0; k < UB_RESOURCES; k++)
> > +		ub->ub_parms[k].barrier = ub->ub_parms[k].limit;
>
>
> This sets barrier to 0. Is this value of 0 interpreted differently by
> different controllers? One way to interpret it is "dont allocate any
> resource", other way to interpret it is "don't care - give me what you
> can" (which makes sense for stuff like CPU and network bandwidth).
every patch which adds a resource modifies this function and sets
some default limit. Check: [PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core)

Thanks,
Kirill

-
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/