On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 04:46:50PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 03:02:17PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote: > > > >>>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. > Probably we still misunderstand here each other. > 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.
Hmm ..if I understand you correctly, there is no one single root of the ubc tree? In other words, there can be several roots (each representing a distinct group of processes)? CKRM has one single root afaik, under which multiple resource/task groups are derived. -- Regards, vatsa ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
