Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Introduce generic structures and routines for
resource accounting.
Each resource accounting container is supposed to
aggregate it, container_subsystem_state and its
resource-specific members within.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff -upr linux-2.6.20.orig/include/linux/res_counter.h
linux-2.6.20-0/include/linux/res_counter.h
--- linux-2.6.20.orig/include/linux/res_counter.h 2007-03-06
13:39:17.000000000 +0300
+++ linux-2.6.20-0/include/linux/res_counter.h 2007-03-06 13:33:28.000000000
+0300
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+#ifndef __RES_COUNTER_H__
+#define __RES_COUNTER_H__
+/*
+ * resource counters
+ *
+ * Copyright 2007 OpenVZ SWsoft Inc
+ *
+ * Author: Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+ *
+ */
+
+#include <linux/container.h>
+
+struct res_counter {
+ unsigned long usage;
+ unsigned long limit;
+ unsigned long failcnt;
+ spinlock_t lock;
+};
+
+enum {
+ RES_USAGE,
+ RES_LIMIT,
+ RES_FAILCNT,
+};
+
+ssize_t res_counter_read(struct res_counter *cnt, int member,
+ const char __user *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t *pos);
+ssize_t res_counter_write(struct res_counter *cnt, int member,
+ const char __user *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t *pos);
+
+static inline void res_counter_init(struct res_counter *cnt)
+{
+ spin_lock_init(&cnt->lock);
+ cnt->limit = (unsigned long)LONG_MAX;
+}
+
Is there any way to indicate that there are no limits on this container.
LONG_MAX is quite huge, but still when the administrator wants to
configure a container to *un-limited usage*, it becomes hard for
the administrator.
+static inline int res_counter_charge_locked(struct res_counter *cnt,
+ unsigned long val)
+{
+ if (cnt->usage <= cnt->limit - val) {
+ cnt->usage += val;
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ cnt->failcnt++;
+ return -ENOMEM;
+}
+
+static inline int res_counter_charge(struct res_counter *cnt,
+ unsigned long val)
+{
+ int ret;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&cnt->lock, flags);
+ ret = res_counter_charge_locked(cnt, val);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cnt->lock, flags);
+ return ret;
+}
+
Will atomic counters help here.
+static inline void res_counter_uncharge_locked(struct res_counter *cnt,
+ unsigned long val)
+{
+ if (unlikely(cnt->usage < val)) {
+ WARN_ON(1);
+ val = cnt->usage;
+ }
+
+ cnt->usage -= val;
+}
+
+static inline void res_counter_uncharge(struct res_counter *cnt,
+ unsigned long val)
+{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&cnt->lock, flags);
+ res_counter_uncharge_locked(cnt, val);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cnt->lock, flags);
+}
+
+#endif
diff -upr linux-2.6.20.orig/init/Kconfig linux-2.6.20-0/init/Kconfig
--- linux-2.6.20.orig/init/Kconfig 2007-03-06 13:33:28.000000000 +0300
+++ linux-2.6.20-0/init/Kconfig 2007-03-06 13:33:28.000000000 +0300
@@ -265,6 +265,10 @@ config CPUSETS
Say N if unsure.
+config RESOURCE_COUNTERS
+ bool
+ select CONTAINERS
+
config SYSFS_DEPRECATED
bool "Create deprecated sysfs files"
default y
diff -upr linux-2.6.20.orig/kernel/Makefile linux-2.6.20-0/kernel/Makefile
--- linux-2.6.20.orig/kernel/Makefile 2007-03-06 13:33:28.000000000 +0300
+++ linux-2.6.20-0/kernel/Makefile 2007-03-06 13:33:28.000000000 +0300
@@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_RELAY) += relay.o
obj-$(CONFIG_UTS_NS) += utsname.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT) += delayacct.o
obj-$(CONFIG_TASKSTATS) += taskstats.o tsacct.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_RESOURCE_COUNTERS) += res_counter.o
ifneq ($(CONFIG_SCHED_NO_NO_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER),y)
# According to Alan Modra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the -fno-omit-frame-pointer is
diff -upr linux-2.6.20.orig/kernel/res_counter.c
linux-2.6.20-0/kernel/res_counter.c
--- linux-2.6.20.orig/kernel/res_counter.c 2007-03-06 13:39:17.000000000
+0300
+++ linux-2.6.20-0/kernel/res_counter.c 2007-03-06 13:33:28.000000000 +0300
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+/*
+ * resource containers
+ *
+ * Copyright 2007 OpenVZ SWsoft Inc
+ *
+ * Author: Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+ *
+ */
+
+#include <linux/parser.h>
+#include <linux/fs.h>
+#include <linux/res_counter.h>
+#include <asm/uaccess.h>
+
+static inline unsigned long *res_counter_member(struct res_counter *cnt, int
member)
+{
+ switch (member) {
+ case RES_USAGE:
+ return &cnt->usage;
+ case RES_LIMIT:
+ return &cnt->limit;
+ case RES_FAILCNT:
+ return &cnt->failcnt;
+ };
+
+ BUG();
+ return NULL;
+}
+
+ssize_t res_counter_read(struct res_counter *cnt, int member,
+ const char __user *userbuf, size_t nbytes, loff_t *pos)
+{
+ unsigned long *val;
+ char buf[64], *s;
+
+ s = buf;
+ val = res_counter_member(cnt, member);
+ s += sprintf(s, "%lu\n", *val);
+ return simple_read_from_buffer((void __user *)userbuf, nbytes,
+ pos, buf, s - buf);
+}
+
+ssize_t res_counter_write(struct res_counter *cnt, int member,
+ const char __user *userbuf, size_t nbytes, loff_t *pos)
+{
+ int ret;
+ char *buf, *end;
+ unsigned long tmp, *val;
+
+ buf = kmalloc(nbytes + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ if (buf == NULL)
+ goto out;
+
+ buf[nbytes] = 0;
+ ret = -EFAULT;
+ if (copy_from_user(buf, userbuf, nbytes))
+ goto out_free;
+
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ tmp = simple_strtoul(buf, &end, 10);
+ if (*end != '\0')
+ goto out_free;
+
+ val = res_counter_member(cnt, member);
+ *val = tmp;
+ ret = nbytes;
+out_free:
+ kfree(buf);
+out:
+ return ret;
+}
These bits look a little out of sync, with no users for these routines in
this patch. Won't you get a compiler warning, compiling this bit alone?
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
