From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965130AbWHQRGj (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:06:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965143AbWHQRGj (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:06:39 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:38042 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965130AbWHQRGi (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:06:38 -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=VW7uTR9mH/MdGGOvkKrzVTDs4x1p9KY/pSdwSOjD5oT7sk+ejx2b8lECgGGt/Cppq f/jms/UCqfs1rHTJmKD1g== Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface) From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Alan Cox , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , Pavel Emelianov , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Rik van Riel , hugh@veritas.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <44E45B6B.8080800@sw.ru> References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru> <44E33C3F.3010509@sw.ru> <1155752277.22595.70.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E45B6B.8080800@sw.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:05:19 -0700 Message-Id: <1155834319.14617.33.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 On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 16:04 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > >>Add the following system calls for UB management: > >> 1. sys_getluid - get current UB id > >> 2. sys_setluid - changes exec_ and fork_ UBs on current > >> 3. sys_setublimit - set limits for resources consumtions > >> > > > > > > Why not have another system call for getting the current limits? > will add sys_getublimit(). > > > But as I said in previous mail, configfs seems like a better choice for > > user interface. That way user has to go to one place to read/write > > limits, see the current usage and other stats. > Check another email about interfaces. I have arguments against it :/ > ...and I'm still not convinced that syscall is the right approach. > > I think there should be a check here for seeing if the new limits are > > lower than the current usage of a resource. If so then take appropriate > > action. > any idea what exact action to add here? > Looks like can be added when needed, agree? > When you have the support of user memory, then operations like flush the extra pages belonging to the container to disk seems reasonable. -rohit