On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 07:48:10PM +0100, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 of September 2012 07:05:59 Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:17:42AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Herbert Poetzl writes:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:23:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 07:48:10PM +0100, Paweł Sikora wrote:
On Tuesday 25 of September 2012 07:05:59 Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:17:42AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Herbert Poetzl herb...@13thfloor.at writes:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:23:55AM +0200, Paweł Sikora
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:17:42AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:23:55AM +0200, Paweł Sikora wrote:
>>> On Sunday 23 of September 2012 18:10:30 Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:23:55AM +0200, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> On Sunday 23 of September 2012 18:10:30 Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Paweł Sikora wrote:
>>> br_read_lock(vfsmount_lock);
>> The vfsmount_lock is a "local-global" lock, where a read-lock
>> is
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:23:55AM +0200, Paweł Sikora wrote:
On Sunday 23 of September 2012 18:10:30 Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Paweł Sikora pl...@pld-linux.org wrote:
br_read_lock(vfsmount_lock);
The vfsmount_lock is a local-global lock, where a
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:17:42AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Herbert Poetzl herb...@13thfloor.at writes:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:23:55AM +0200, Paweł Sikora wrote:
On Sunday 23 of September 2012 18:10:30 Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Paweł Sikora pl...@pld
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 05:16:17PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 12:01:59PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> >> This is "submition for inclusion" of hierarchical, not kconfig
> >> configurab
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 12:01:59PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> This is "submition for inclusion" of hierarchical, not kconfig
> configurable, zero overheaded ;) pid namespaces.
>
> The overall idea is the following:
>
> The namespace are organized as a tree - once a task is cloned
> with
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 12:01:59PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
This is submition for inclusion of hierarchical, not kconfig
configurable, zero overheaded ;) pid namespaces.
The overall idea is the following:
The namespace are organized as a tree - once a task is cloned
with
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 05:16:17PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 12:01:59PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
This is submition for inclusion of hierarchical, not kconfig
configurable, zero overheaded ;) pid namespaces.
The overall idea
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 04:39:28PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 05:25:25PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> >> Adds RSS accounting and control within a container.
> >>
> >> Changes from v3
> >> - com
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 05:25:25PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Adds RSS accounting and control within a container.
>
> Changes from v3
> - comments across the code
> - git-bisect safe split
> - lost places to move the page between active/inactive lists
>
> Ported above Paul's containers
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 05:25:25PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Adds RSS accounting and control within a container.
Changes from v3
- comments across the code
- git-bisect safe split
- lost places to move the page between active/inactive lists
Ported above Paul's containers V10 with
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 04:39:28PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 05:25:25PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Adds RSS accounting and control within a container.
Changes from v3
- comments across the code
- git-bisect safe split
- lost
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:32:08PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > From: Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > If CLONE_NEWNS and CLONE_NEWNS_USERMNT are given to clone(2) or
> > unshare(2), then allow user mounts within the new namespace.
> >
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 03:32:08PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
From: Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If CLONE_NEWNS and CLONE_NEWNS_USERMNT are given to clone(2) or
unshare(2), then allow user mounts within the new namespace.
This is not
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 08:29:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:21:56 +0200 Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > a) slice the machine into 128 fake NUMA nodes, use each node as the
> > >basic block of memory allocati
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 08:29:51PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:21:56 +0200 Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) slice the machine into 128 fake NUMA nodes, use each node as the
basic block of memory allocation, manage the binding between these
memory
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 12:19:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:38:06 +0100 Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:42:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:30:00 +0100 Herbe
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:42:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:30:00 +0100 Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Eric!
> > Hi Folks!
> >
> > here is a real world example result from one of my tests
> >
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:42:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:30:00 +0100 Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Eric!
Hi Folks!
here is a real world example result from one of my tests
regarding the benefit of sharing over separate memory
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 12:19:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:38:06 +0100 Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:42:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:30:00 +0100 Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
Hi Eric!
Hi Folks!
here is a real world example result from one of my tests
regarding the benefit of sharing over separate memory
the setup is quite simple, a typical machine used by
providers all over the world, a dual Pentium D 3.2GHz
with 4GB of memory and a single 160GB SATA disk running
a
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:41:12AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 04:12 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Would any of them work on a system on which every filesystem was on
> > ramfs, and there was no swap? If not then they are not memory attacks
> > but I/O attacks.
>
> I
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:41:12AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 04:12 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Would any of them work on a system on which every filesystem was on
ramfs, and there was no swap? If not then they are not memory attacks
but I/O attacks.
I truly
Hi Eric!
Hi Folks!
here is a real world example result from one of my tests
regarding the benefit of sharing over separate memory
the setup is quite simple, a typical machine used by
providers all over the world, a dual Pentium D 3.2GHz
with 4GB of memory and a single 160GB SATA disk running
a
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:39:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:41:03 -0700
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > This was discussed on containers and we thought it would be useful
> > to reserve this flag.
> > ---
> >
> > From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 03:19:16PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_
> > about memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting
> > for memory pressure. :) Perhaps we mean
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:28:43AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:58 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > "Serge E. Hallyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > >> > void autofs4_dentry_release(struct dentry *);
> > > >> >
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:28:43AM +0900, Ian Kent wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 15:58 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Serge E. Hallyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
void autofs4_dentry_release(struct dentry *);
extern void
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 03:19:16PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, I think we have a difference of opinion. I think it's _all_
about memory pressure, and you think it is _not_ about accounting
for memory pressure. :) Perhaps we mean different
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:39:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:41:03 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was discussed on containers and we thought it would be useful
to reserve this flag.
---
From: Sukadev Bhattiprolu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PATCH]
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 11:42:15AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:54 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> - Why do limits have to apply to the unmapped page cache?
> >
> > To
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 11:42:15AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 12:54 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- Why do limits have to apply to the unmapped page cache?
To me, it is just
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:12:50PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:24:37AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> > > If there really was a grouping that was always guaranteed to match
> > > the way you wanted to group tasks
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:34:35PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:24:37AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> > If there really was a grouping that was always guaranteed to match the
> > way you wanted to group tasks for e.g. resource control, then yes, it
> > would be great
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:34:35PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:24:37AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
If there really was a grouping that was always guaranteed to match the
way you wanted to group tasks for e.g. resource control, then yes, it
would be great to use
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:12:50PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
On 3/15/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:24:37AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
If there really was a grouping that was always guaranteed to match
the way you wanted to group tasks for e.g.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:28:20PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:24:59PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > what about identifying different resource categories and
> > handling them according to the typical usage pattern?
> >
> > like the
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:41:05PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> >>> PS: atomic_add_unless() didn't exist back then
> >>> (at least I think so) but that might be an option
> >>> too ...
> >> I think as far as having this discussion if you can remove that race
> >> people will be more willing to
>nsproxy or tsk->nsproxy->pid_ns)
>
> + reuses existing grouping mechanism in kernel
>
> - mixes resource and name spaces (?)
>
> c. Introduce yet-another new structure ('struct res_ctl?') which houses
>resource control (& possibly pid_
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:27:06AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > hmm, it is very unlikely that this would happen,
> > for several reasons ... and indeed, checking the
> > thread in my mailbox shows that akpm dropped you ...
>
> But, I got Andrew's email.
>
> >
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 07:25:48PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 3/12/07, Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > why? you simply enter that specific space and
> > use the existing mechanisms (netlink, proc, whatever)
> > to retrieve the information w
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:41:37PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 02:55:05PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > yes, tons of locking, complicated indirections and
> > a lot of (partially hard to understand) code ...
>
> Are you referring to these
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:09:06AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 01:00:15PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:10:55PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> >>So what to do when virtual physical limit is hit?
> >>OOM-kill current task?
> >
> >
> > when the RSS limit is hit, but there _are_ enough
> > pages left on the physical system, there is no
> > good reason to swap out the page
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:17:54AM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> >>>>> Maybe you have some ideas how we can decide on this?
> >>>> We need to work o
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:48:34AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:19:53 +0300 Kirill Korotaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > - shared mappings of 'shared' files (binaries
> > and libraries) to allow for reduced memory
> >
> From: Hansen donotmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Herbert Poetzl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] RSS control
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:28:06AM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> >>>well, Linux-VServer is "working", "secure", "flexible"
> >>>_and_ non-intrusive ... it is quite natural that less
> >>>won't work for me ... and regarding patches, there
> >>>will be a 2.2 release soon, with all the patches ...
From: Hansen donotmail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] RSS controller core
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:02:08 -0700
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:17:54AM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Maybe you have some ideas how we can decide on this?
We need to work out what the requirements are before we can
settle
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:10:55PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
So what to do when virtual physical limit is hit?
OOM-kill current task?
when the RSS limit is hit, but there _are_ enough
pages left on the physical system, there is no
good reason to swap out the page at all
-
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:09:06AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:27:06AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
hmm, it is very unlikely that this would happen,
for several reasons ... and indeed, checking the
thread in my mailbox shows that akpm dropped you ...
But, I got Andrew's email.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 06:41:05PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
PS: atomic_add_unless() didn't exist back then
(at least I think so) but that might be an option
too ...
I think as far as having this discussion if you can remove that race
people will be more willing to talk about what
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:28:06AM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
well, Linux-VServer is working, secure, flexible
_and_ non-intrusive ... it is quite natural that less
won't work for me ... and regarding patches, there
will be a 2.2 release soon, with all the patches ...
first, fix your mail
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:41:37PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 02:55:05PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
yes, tons of locking, complicated indirections and
a lot of (partially hard to understand) code ...
Are you referring to these issues in the general Paul
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 07:25:48PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
On 3/12/07, Herbert Poetzl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why? you simply enter that specific space and
use the existing mechanisms (netlink, proc, whatever)
to retrieve the information with _existing_ tools,
That's assuming
pid_ns?) parameters and a new pointer to this
structure in task_struct (Herbert Poetzl).
Tasks that have a pointer to the same 'struct res_ctl' are considered
to form a group for res mgmt purpose
+ Accessing res ctl information in scheduler fast path is
optimized
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:48:34AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:19:53 +0300 Kirill Korotaev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
- shared mappings of 'shared' files (binaries
and libraries) to allow for reduced memory
footprint when N identical
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:28:20PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 05:24:59PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
what about identifying different resource categories and
handling them according to the typical usage pattern?
like the following:
- cpu and scheduler
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 09:50:08AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:23 +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> >
> > For these you essentially need per-container page->_mapcount counter,
> > otherwise you can't detect whether rss group still has the page
> > in question being mapped
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:25:07PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > doesn't look so good for me, mainly becaus of the
> > additional per page data and per page processing
> >
> > on 4GB memory, with 100 guests, 50% shared for each
> > guest, this basically means ~1mio pages, 500k shared
> > and
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 09:50:45PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:56:43AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > What's wrong with that?
>
> I had been asking around on "what is the fundamental unit of res mgmt
> for vservers" and the answer I got (from Herbert) was "all
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:00:25AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
> On 3/11/07, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > My current understanding of Paul Menage's container patch is that it is
> > a useful improvement for some of the metered classes - those that could
> > make good use of a file
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 11:36:04AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> 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
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 08:09:29PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:42:59AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> How about we drill down on these a bit more.
>
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 02:00 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > - shared mappings of 'shared' files (binaries
> >and libraries) to allow for reduced memory
&g
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> >>> Maybe you have some ideas how we can decide on this?
> >> We need to work out what the requirements are before we can
> >> settle on an implementation.
> >
> > Linux-VServer (and probably OpenVZ):
> >
> > - shared mappings
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 12:02:01PM +0300, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
Maybe you have some ideas how we can decide on this?
We need to work out what the requirements are before we can
settle on an implementation.
Linux-VServer (and probably OpenVZ):
- shared mappings of 'shared' files
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:42:59AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
How about we drill down on these a bit more.
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 02:00 +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
- shared mappings of 'shared' files (binaries
and libraries) to allow for reduced memory
footprint when N identical
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:25:07PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
doesn't look so good for me, mainly becaus of the
additional per page data and per page processing
on 4GB memory, with 100 guests, 50% shared for each
guest, this basically means ~1mio pages, 500k shared
and 1500k x
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 09:50:08AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 19:23 +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
For these you essentially need per-container page-_mapcount counter,
otherwise you can't detect whether rss group still has the page
in question being mapped in its
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 08:09:29PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
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
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 11:36:04AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
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
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 03:00:25AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
On 3/11/07, Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My current understanding of Paul Menage's container patch is that it is
a useful improvement for some of the metered classes - those that could
make good use of a file system
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 09:50:45PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:56:43AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
What's wrong with that?
I had been asking around on what is the fundamental unit of res mgmt
for vservers and the answer I got (from Herbert) was all tasks
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
> > begin
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
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:
> >&g
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:
>>>
&
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_counter res;
+ struct
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
Pavel Emelianov
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_container {
+ struct
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
accounting once
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 12:11:05AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 02:16:08AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 05:00:54PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:50:01PM +1300, Sam Vilain wrote:
&
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 update current
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:25:47AM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Ease of use maybe. Scripts can be more readily used with a fs-based
> > interface.
>
> And, as I might have already stated, file system API's are a natural
> fit for hierarchically shaped data, especially if the nodes in the
>
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:44:22PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:48:16AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > > There have been various projects attempting to provide resource
> > > management support in Linux, including CKRM/Resource Groups and
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:49:08PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:53:57AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>>> The real trick is that I believe these groupings are designed to
>>> be something you can setup on login and then not be able to switch
&g
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_subsys_state css;
> > +};
> >
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, container_subsystem_state
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:07:27PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>> nobody actually cares about a precise accounting and
>> calculating shares or partitions of whatever resource,
>> all that matters is that you have a way to prevent a
>> potential hostile environment from sucking up all your
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:23:55PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>>> There have been various projects attempting to provide
>>> resource management support in Linux, including
>>> CKRM/Resource Groups and UBC.
>>
>> let me note here, once again, that you forgot Linux-VServer
>> which does quite
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, container_subsystem_state and its
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_subsys_state css;
+};
+
+struct
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:23:55PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
There have been various projects attempting to provide
resource management support in Linux, including
CKRM/Resource Groups and UBC.
let me note here, once again, that you forgot Linux-VServer
which does quite non-intrusive
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:07:27PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
nobody actually cares about a precise accounting and
calculating shares or partitions of whatever resource,
all that matters is that you have a way to prevent a
potential hostile environment from sucking up all your
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:49:08PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 01:53:57AM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
The real trick is that I believe these groupings are designed to
be something you can setup on login and then not be able to switch
out of. Which means we can't
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
