I realy don't want to be annoying by sending this patcheset over and over
again, i just want the issue to be solved. If anyone think this solution
is realy cappy, please comment what exectly is bad. Thank you.
Changes:
- patch was split in two patches.
- comments added. I think now it is clear
I realy don't want to be annoying by sending this patcheset over and over
again. If anyone think this patch is realy cappy, please comment what
exectly is bad. Thank you.
Changes:
- patch was split in two patches.
- comments added. I think now it is clearly describe things.
- make generic_s
Dmitriy Monakhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - ext3_dx_find_entry() exit with out setting proper error pointer
> - do_split() exit with out setting proper error pointer
>it is realy painful because many callers contain folowing code:
>de = do_split(handle,dir, &bh, frame, &hinf
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 01:00:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > Linux-VServer does the accounting with atomic counters,
> > so that works quite fine, just do the checks at the
> > beginning of whatever resource allocation and the
> > accoun
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 04:51:11AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:26:41 +0300 Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300
> > > Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>+struct rss_co
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 06:04:28PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:08:16PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> >> Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:00:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300
> >
"Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> A better way to put this is that we already have a lock that attach_pid
>> and detach_pid use. So we don't need another one for what should be
>> a very rare case.
>
> I think we'd at least need rcu if we supported unshare.
We might.
>> I don't t
Sam, responding to Herbert:
> > from my personal PoV the following would be fine:
> >
> > spaces (for the various 'spaces')
> >...
> > container (for resource accounting/limits)
> >...
>
> I like these a lot ...
Hmmm ... ok ...
Let me see if I understand this.
We have actors, known as
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > +int attach_pid_nr(struct pid *pid, struct pid_nr *pid_nr)
> >> > +{
> >> > +spin_lock(&pid->lock);
> >> > +hlist_add_head_rcu(&pid_nr->node, &pid->pid_nrs);
> >> > +spin
vatsa wrote:
> Yes, that way only the hierarchy hosting cpusets takes the hit of
> double-locking. cpuset_subsys->create/destroy can take this additional lock
> inside cpuset.c.
The primary reason for the cpuset double locking, as I recall, was because
cpusets needs to access cpusets inside the m
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> sorry for the late answer, I almost missed that one ...
>
> yes, that sounds like an acceptable alternative, but
> it might give some interesting issues with references
> to devices ... for example:
>
> you mount a filesystem inside a namespace, so t
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yep. Straightforward machine partitioning. An attractive thing is that it
> 100% reuses existing page reclaim, unaltered.
And misses every resource sharing opportunity in sight. Except for
filtering the which pages are eligible for reclaim an RSS lim
Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pages are charged to their first touchers which are
> determined using pages' mapcount manipulations in
> rmap calls.
NAK pages should be charged to every rss group whose mm_struct they
are mapped into.
Eric
__
Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adds needed pointers to mm_struct and page struct,
> places hooks to core code for mm_struct initialization
> and hooks in container_init_early() to preinitialize
> RSS accounting subsystem.
An extra pointer in struct page is unlikely to fly.
Both bec
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Linux-VServer does the accounting with atomic counters,
> so that works quite fine, just do the checks at the
> beginning of whatever resource allocation and the
> accounting once the resource is acquired ...
Atomic operations versus locks is only a
On 3/11/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:26:41 +0300 Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300
> > Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>+struct rss_container {
> >>+ struct res_
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 4/6] Initialize struct pid_nr for swapper.
>
> Statically initialize a struct pid_nr for the swapper process.
I see the sense in this bit but where does this come up?
That is can we get away without h
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> okay, then please lets make sure that this actually
> works, because I think it might solve most of the
> lightweight guest issues the suggested pid spaces
> would introduce ...
>
> I tried that some time back, but the procfs really
> provides _a lot_ o
"Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > +int attach_pid_nr(struct pid *pid, struct pid_nr *pid_nr)
>> > +{
>> > + spin_lock(&pid->lock);
>> > + hlist_add_head_rcu(&pid_nr->node, &pid->pid_nrs);
>> > + spin_unlock(&pid->lock);
>>
>> struct pid doesn't have a lock member.
>>
>> We sh
"Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we don't do that, then the session and pgrp leaders need to get
> pulled into the new namespace.
>
> Previous versions did that, and eventually we want to support that
> again, but for now to keep the rfc patches simpler this seemed the
> better
"Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Subject: [RFC][PATCH 3/5] Use pid namespace from struct pid_nrs list
>> >
>> > Stop using task->nsproxy->pid_ns.
"Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we're going to put the resource stuff in, then I agree let's rename.
> If we stick to this being a namespace proxy (my preference) then calling
> it nsproxy is more accurate.
Sounds like a reasonable criteria.
> (I can't keep up with that thread
Herbert,
> sorry, I'm not in the lucky position that I get payed
> for sending patches to LKML, so I have to think twice
> before I invest time in coding up extra patches ...
>
> i.e. you will have to live with my comments for now
looks like you have no better argurments then that...
>>Looks lik
Quoting Herbert Poetzl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:27:07PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:38:19AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > > > 2) you allow a task to selectively reshare namespaces/subsystems with
> > > >another task, i.e. you can u
Here was a thread related to this:
http://forum.openvz.org/index.php?t=tree&th=479&mid=2771&&rev=&reveal=
Thanks,
Kirill
Shuveb Hussain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a way to obtain the current CPU utilization for a particular VPS?
> How do I figure out CPU utilization:
> 1. utilization with refere
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > From: Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] Add struct pid_nr
> >
> > Define struct pid_nr and some helper functions that will be used in
> > subsequent patches.
> >
> > Changelog:
> >
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:08:16PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:00:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300
Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +struct rss_contain
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 05:27:59AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:59:24PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 4/6] Initialize struct pid_nr
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 12:08:16PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:00:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300
>>> Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
+struct rss_container {
+ struct res_counte
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 06:57:13PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IMHO not the best idea, mainly because both OpenVZ
> > and Linux-VServer will end up either duplicating
> > the pid code or using the incomplete (broken) version
> > which probabl
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> It is good to see these patches are starting to come together.
>
> Be patient a good review is going to take me a little bit.
>
> A couple of immediate things I see that would be nice to address before
> we aim at merging these patches upstream.
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [RFC][PATCH 5/6] Define helper functions to unshare pid namespace
> >
> > Define clone_pid_ns() and unshare_pid_ns() functions that will be
> > used in the ne
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: [RFC][PATCH 3/5] Use pid namespace from struct pid_nrs list
> >
> > Stop using task->nsproxy->pid_ns. Use pid_namespace from pid->pid_nrs
> > list instead.
>
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:26:41 +0300 Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300
> > Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>+struct rss_container {
> >>+ struct res_counter res;
> >>+ struct list_head page_list;
> >>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 3/5] Use pid namespace from struct pid_nrs list
>
> Stop using task->nsproxy->pid_ns. Use pid_namespace from pid->pid_nrs
> list instead.
>
> To simplify error handling, this patch moves processing of
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300
> Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>+struct rss_container {
>>+ struct res_counter res;
>>+ struct list_head page_list;
>>+ struct container_subsys_state css;
>>+};
>>+
>>+struct page_container {
>>+ struct p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 6/6]: Enable unsharing pid namespace.
>
> Enable unsharing of pid namespace - i.e allow creating and using
> a new pid namespace and attaching multiple struct pid_nrs per
> process, one for each namespace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 5/6] Define helper functions to unshare pid namespace
>
> Define clone_pid_ns() and unshare_pid_ns() functions that will be
> used in the next patch to unshare pid namespace.
>
> Changelog:
> -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 3/6] pid namespace : use struct pid_nr
>
> Allocate and attach a struct pid nr to the struct pid. When freeing the
> pid, free the attached struct pid nrs.
>
> Changelog:
> - [Serge Hallyn's comment
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] Add struct pid_nr
>
> Define struct pid_nr and some helper functions that will be used in
> subsequent patches.
>
> Changelog:
> - [Serge Hallyn comment]: Remove (!pid_nr) check in free_pid_nr(
Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 07:59:24PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 4/6] Initialize struct pid_nr for swapper.
>>
>> Statically initialize a struct pid_nr for the swapper proce
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] Allow unsharing pid namespace.
>
> This patchset defines a struct pid_nr and uses this to allow
> processes to unshare their pid namespace.
>
> struct pid_nr will hold [pid value, namespace] pair
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:00:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:55:29 +0300
>> Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> +struct rss_container {
>>> + struct res_counter res;
>>> + struct list_head page_list;
>>> + struct container_subs
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 10:19:05AM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>> Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Introduce generic structures and routines for
resource accounting.
Each resource accounting container is supposed to
aggregate it, cont
Balbir Singh wrote:
> Hi, Pavel,
>
> Please find my patch to add LRU behaviour to your latest RSS controller.
Thanks for participation and additional testing :)
I'll include this into next generation of patches.
> Balbir Singh
> Linux Technology Center
> IBM, ISTL
>
>
> ---
Paul Menage wrote:
> On 3/6/07, Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The idea is:
>>
>> Task may be "the entity that allocates the resources" and "the
>> entity that is a resource allocated".
>>
>> When task is the first entity it may move across containers
>> (that is implemented in your
46 matches
Mail list logo
