Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH 2/7] UBC: core (structures, API)
From: Kirill Korotaev
Date: Tue Aug 22 2006 - 08:41:28 EST
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 03:02:17PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:Probably we still misunderstand here each other.
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.
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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/