Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030184AbWILKaf (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:30:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030185AbWILKaf (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:30:35 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:63882 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030184AbWILKae (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Sep 2006 06:30:34 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:59:43 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Pavel Emelianov Cc: sekharan@us.ibm.com, Rik van Riel , CKRM-Tech , Dave Hansen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andi Kleen , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Matt Helsley , Hugh Dickins , Alexey Dobriyan , Kirill Korotaev , Oleg Nesterov , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH] BC: resource beancounters (v4) (added user memory) Message-ID: <20060912102943.GA28128@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <1157478392.3186.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44FED3CA.7000005@sw.ru> <1157579641.31893.26.camel@linuxchandra> <44FFCA4D.9090202@openvz.org> <1157656616.19884.34.camel@linuxchandra> <45011A47.1020407@openvz.org> <1157742442.19884.47.camel@linuxchandra> <450509EE.9010809@openvz.org> <20060911130428.GA16404@in.ibm.com> <45068AD9.50308@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45068AD9.50308@openvz.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2180 Lines: 54 On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 02:24:25PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote: > Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > 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. > > > That's the scenario we started from - each domain is served in a separate > BC with *threaded* Apache. Sure ..but you can still meet that requirement by creating fixed set of BCs (for each domain) and let each new thread be associated with a corresponding BC (w/o requiring to create BC for every new thread), depending on which domain's request it is serving? > > > >> 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. > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? > Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier > Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 > _______________________________________________ > ckrm-tech mailing list > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech -- 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/