+ for (p = ub; p != NULL; p = p->parent) {
Seems rather expensive to walk up the tree for every charge. Especially
if the administrator wants a fine degree of resource control and makes a
tall tree. This would be a problem especially when it comes to resources
that require frequent and fast allocation.
in heirarchical accounting you always have to update all the nodes :/
with flat UBC this doesn't introduce significant overhead.
Except that you eventually have to lock ub0. Seems that the cache line
for that spinlock could bounce quite a bit in such a hot path.
do you mean by ub0 host system ub which we call ub0
or you mean a top ub?
Chandra, doesn't Resource Groups avoid walking more than 1 level up the
hierarchy in the "charge" paths?
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]
