Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750803AbWHGROu (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 13:14:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750804AbWHGROu (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 13:14:50 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:17168 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750803AbWHGROt (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 13:14:49 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references: content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=ns3iIknlN4rro/EDJkfjVbyda9yXZm+U7wqiGTbYZIlhI6gZ7C/2oPI0gllzgObqm l+XcxXnu2RzE6/K1Lmk6Q== Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/5] Going forward with Resource Management - A cpu controller From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: vatsa@in.ibm.com, Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , mingo@elte.hu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, sam@vilain.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dev@openvz.org, efault@gmx.de, balbir@in.ibm.com, sekharan@us.ibm.com, nagar@watson.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, pj@sgi.com In-Reply-To: <44D6E98C.9090208@sw.ru> References: <20060804050753.GD27194@in.ibm.com> <20060803223650.423f2e6a.akpm@osdl.org> <20060803224253.49068b98.akpm@osdl.org> <1154684950.23655.178.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060804114109.GA28988@in.ibm.com> <44D35F0B.5000801@sw.ru> <20060804153123.GB32412@in.ibm.com> <44D36FB5.3050002@sw.ru> <1154716024.7228.32.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44D6E98C.9090208@sw.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:14:06 -0700 Message-Id: <1154970846.31962.17.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1516 Lines: 37 On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 11:19 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > >>>Doesnt the ability to move tasks between groups dynamically affect > >>>(atleast) memory controller design (in giving up ownership etc)? > >> > >>we save object owner on the object. So if you change the container, > >>objects are still correctly charged to the creator and are uncharged > >>correctly on free. > >> > > > > > > Seems like the object owner should also change when the object moves > > from one container to another. > Consider a file which is opened in 2 processes. one of the processes > wants to move to another container then. How would you decide whether > to change the file owner or not? > If a process has sufficient rights to move a file to a new container then it should be okay to assign the file to the new container. Though the point is, if a resource (like file) is getting migrated to a new container then all the attributes (like owner, #pages in memory etc.) attached to that resource (file) should also migrate to this new container. Otherwise the semantics of where does the resource belong becomes very difficult. And if you really want a resource to not be able to migrate from one container then we could define IMMUTABLE flag to indicate that behavior. -rohit - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/