[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44FDC1E1.7090006@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:58:49 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Cc: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>, devel@...nvz.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user
memory)
Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 19:02 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>> Core Resource Beancounters (BC) + kernel/user memory control.
>>
>> BC allows to account and control consumption
>> of kernel resources used by group of processes.
>
> Hi Kirill,
>
> I've honestly lost track of these discussions along the way, so I hope
> you don't mind summarizing a bit.
>
> Do these patches help with accounting for anything other than memory?
> Will we need new user/kernel interfaces for cpu, i/o bandwidth, etc...?
>
> Have you given any thought to the possibility that a task might need to
> move between accounting contexts? That has certainly been a
> "requirement" pushed on to CKRM for a long time, and the need goes
> something like this:
>
> 1. A system runs a web server, which services several virtual domains
> 2. that web server receives a request for foo.com
> 3. the web server switches into foo.com's accounting context
> 4. the web server reads things from disk, allocates some memory, and
> makes a database request.
> 5. the database receives the request, and switches into foo.com's
> accounting context, and charges foo.com for its resource use
> etc...
>
> So, the goal is to run _one_ copy of an application on a system, but
> account for its resources in a much more fine-grained way than at the
> application level.
>
> I think we can probably use beancounters for this, if we do not worry
> about migrating _existing_ charges when we change accounting context.
> Does that make sense?
>
> -- Dave
This is much better stated than I did. Thanks!
--
Balbir Singh,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs
-
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