[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060912120407.GA28959@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:34:07 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, sekharan@...ibm.com,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, 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 Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 03:06:35PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Hmmm... Beancounters can provide this after trivial changes.
All that is needed is some interface to set a thread's BC id (which you
seem to have already - sys_set_bcid)
> We may schedule them in current set of "pending" features
> (http://wiki.openvz.org/UBC_discussion)
>
> But this can create a kind of DoS within an application:
> A thread continuously touches new and new pages to it's BC and
> these pages are get touched by other threads also. Sooner or later
Any good reason why threads will touch each other's working set?
Sure nothing prevents them from touching, but I would expect each thread
(serving a separate domain) to work on its own set of private pages?
> this BC will hit it's limit and reclaiming this set of pages would affect
> all the other threads.
--
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