Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932275AbWHVOjT (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:39:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932276AbWHVOjT (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:39:19 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:26273 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932275AbWHVOjR (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:39:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:08:31 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: Rik van Riel , "Chandra S. Seetharaman" , CKRM-Tech , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Matt Helsley , hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , Pavel Emelianov Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API) Message-ID: <20060822143831.GA12458@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> <20060822122329.GA7125@in.ibm.com> <44EAFCBA.10400@sw.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44EAFCBA.10400@sw.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1331 Lines: 33 On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 04:46:50PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > 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. > Probably we still misunderstand here each other. > top ub can be any UB. it's children do account resources > to the whole chain of UBs to the top parent. > > i.e. ub0 is not a tree root. Hmm ..if I understand you correctly, there is no one single root of the ubc tree? In other words, there can be several roots (each representing a distinct group of processes)? CKRM has one single root afaik, under which multiple resource/task groups are derived. -- 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/