[Devel] Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC][PATCH] UBC: user resource beancounters

Chandra Seetharaman sekharan at us.ibm.com
Fri Aug 25 16:00:54 PDT 2006

On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 00:12 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Gwe, 2006-08-25 am 15:23 -0700, ysgrifennodd Chandra Seetharaman:
> > > Bean counters can exist with no tasks, and the CKRM people have been
> > > corrected repeatedly on this point.
> > 
> > Hmm... from what I understand from the code, when the last resource in
> > the beancounter is dropped, the beancounter is destroyed. Which to me
> > means that when there are no tasks in a beancounter it will be
> > destroyed. (I just tested the code and verified that the beancounter is
> > destroyed when the task dies).
> If a task created resource remains then the beancounter remains until
> the resources are destroyed, so it may exit well after the last task (eg
> an object handed to another process with a different luid is stil
> charged to us)

It is the _implicit destruction_ that is a problem.
> > Let me reword the requirement: beancounter/resource group should _not_
> > be destroyed implicitly. It should be destroyed only when requested by
> > the user/sysadmin. In other words, we need a create_luid() and
> > destroy_luid().
> So that you can preserve the limits on the resource group ? That also
> makes sense if you are trying to do long term resource management.


> Alan

    Chandra Seetharaman               | Be careful what you choose....
              - sekharan at us.ibm.com   |      .......you may get it.

More information about the Devel mailing list