[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060911130428.GA16404@in.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:34:28 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: sekharan@...ibm.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrey Savochkin <saw@...ru>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...l.ru>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory)
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 11:02:06AM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Sure. At the beginning I have one task with one BC. Then
> 1. A thread is spawned and new BC is created;
Why do we have to create a BC for every new thread? A new BC is needed
for every new service level instead IMO. And typically there wont be
unlimited service levels.
> 2. New thread touches a new page (e.g. maps a new file) which is charged
> to new BC
> (and this means that this BC's must stay in memory till page is
> uncharged);
> 3. Thread exits after serving the request, but since it's mm is shared
> with parent
> all the touched pages stay resident and, thus, the new BC is still
> pinned in memory.
> Steps 1-3 are done multiple times for new pages (new files).
> Remember that we're discussing the case when pages are not recharged.
--
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