Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:53:29 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
To: Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>
Cc: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
       "Chandra S. Seetharaman" <sekharan@us.ibm.com>,
       CKRM-Tech <ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       Andrey Savochkin <saw@sw.ru>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, devel@openvz.org,
       Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API)
Message-ID: <20060822122329.GA7125@in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com
References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru> <44E33BB6.3050504@sw.ru> <1155866328.2510.247.camel@stark> <44E5A637.1020407@sw.ru> <1155955116.2510.445.camel@stark> <44E992B9.8080908@sw.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44E992B9.8080908@sw.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 742
Lines: 18

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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/