Ar Gwe, 2006-08-25 am 15:23 -0700, ysgrifennodd Chandra Seetharaman: > > Bean counters can exist with no tasks, and the CKRM people have been > > corrected repeatedly on this point. > > Hmm... from what I understand from the code, when the last resource in > the beancounter is dropped, the beancounter is destroyed. Which to me > means that when there are no tasks in a beancounter it will be > destroyed. (I just tested the code and verified that the beancounter is > destroyed when the task dies). If a task created resource remains then the beancounter remains until the resources are destroyed, so it may exit well after the last task (eg an object handed to another process with a different luid is stil charged to us) > Let me reword the requirement: beancounter/resource group should _not_ > be destroyed implicitly. It should be destroyed only when requested by > the user/sysadmin. In other words, we need a create_luid() and > destroy_luid(). So that you can preserve the limits on the resource group ? That also makes sense if you are trying to do long term resource management. Alan - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- References:
- [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Rohit Seth <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Rohit Seth <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Rohit Seth <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- From: Chandra Seetharaman <[email protected]>
- [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] IPV6 : segmentation offload not set correctly on TCP children
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] IPV6 : segmentation offload not set correctly on TCP children
- Previous by thread: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- Next by thread: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters
- Index(es):