From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751263AbWHUWoY (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:44:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751269AbWHUWoX (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:44:23 -0400 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:8359 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751263AbWHUWoX (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:44:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters From: Chandra Seetharaman Reply-To: sekharan@us.ibm.com To: Alan Cox Cc: Rik van Riel , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Hellwig , Andrey Savochkin , hugh@veritas.com, Ingo Molnar , Kirill Korotaev , devel@openvz.org, Pavel Emelianov In-Reply-To: <1156198835.18887.87.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru> <1155929992.26155.60.camel@linuxchandra> <44E9B3F5.3010000@sw.ru> <1156196721.6479.67.camel@linuxchandra> <1156198835.18887.87.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: IBM Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:44:19 -0700 Message-Id: <1156200259.6479.74.camel@linuxchandra> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 23:20 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > Ar Llu, 2006-08-21 am 14:45 -0700, ysgrifennodd Chandra Seetharaman: > > As I mentioned UBC might be perfect for container resource management, > > but what I am talking for is resource management _without_ a container. > > There isn't really a difference. UBC counts usage of things. It has to > know who to charge the thing to but its core concept of the luid isn't a > container, its more akin to the a departmental or project billing code. I didn't say it is different. The way it is implemented now has some restrictions for generic resource management purposes (like ability to move task around), but they are not a problem for container type usage. > > > > 3. is it so BIG obstacle for UBC patch? These 3-lines hooks code which > > > is not used? > > Add them later when they prove to be needed. If IBM send a feature that > needs it then add them in that feature. Everyone is happy it is possible > to add that hook when needed. As I mentioned in my reply, I am ok with adding it later. > > > In a non-container situation IMO it will be easier to manage/associate > > "gold", "silver", "bronze", "plastic" groups than 0, 11, 83 and 113. > > User space issue. Doing that in kernel will lead to some limitations > later on and end up needing the user space anyway. Consider wanting to > keep the container name and properties in LDAP. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose.... - sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------