[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060822122329.GA7125@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:53:29 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>
Cc: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Chandra S. Seetharaman" <sekharan@...ibm.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>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, hugh@...itas.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, devel@...nvz.org,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API)
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 03:02:17PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > 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?
If this were used for pure resource management purpose (w/o containers)
then the top ub would be ub0 right? "How bad would the contention on the
ub0->lock be then" is I guess Matt's question.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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