[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44E992B9.8080908@sw.ru>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:02:17 +0400
From: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
CC: "Chandra S. Seetharaman" <sekharan@...ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
hugh@...itas.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API)
>>>>+ 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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists