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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
