[ckrm-tech] containers development plans (July 10 version)

Balbir Singh balbir at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Wed Jul 11 01:32:05 PDT 2007


Paul Menage wrote:
> On 7/11/07, Balbir Singh <balbir at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> swap_list is a list of swap_devices associated with the container.
> 
> That doesn't sound so great, since you'd need to update all the
> mem_container_ptr objects that point to that swap controller subsys
> state when you change the swap devices for the container.
> 

Not all of them, only for that container. This list is per container.
I don't see why need to update all the mem_container_ptr objects?

>>> - when an mm is created, store a pointer to the task_struct that it
>>> belongs to
>>> - when a process exits and its mm_struct points to it, and there are
>>> other mm users (i.e. a thread group leader exits before some of its
>>> children), then find a different process that's using the same mm
>>> (which will almost always be the next process in the list running
>>> through current->tasks, but in strange situations we might need to
>>> scan the global tasklist)
>>>
>> We'll that sounds like a complicated scheme.
> 
> I don't think it's that complicated. There would be some slightly
> interesting synchronization, probably involving RCU, to make sure you
> didn't derefence mm->owner when mm->owner had been freed but apart
> from that it's straightforward.
> 

Walking the global tasklist to find the tasks that share the same mm
to me seems like an overhead.

>> We do that currently, our mm->owner is called mm->mem_container.
> 
> No.
> 
> mm->mem_container is a pointer to a container (well, actually a
> container_subsys_state). As Pavel mentioned in my containers talk,
> giving non-task objects pointers to container_subsys_state objects is
> possible but causes problems when the actual tasks move around, and if
> we could avoid it that would be great.
> 

Hmmm.. interesting.. I was there, but I guess I missed the discussion
(did u have it after the talk?)

> 
>> It points
>> to a data structure that contains information about the container to which
>> the mm belongs. The problem I see with mm->owner is that several threads
>> can belong to different containers.
> 
> Yes, different threads could be in different containers, but the mm
> can only belong to one container. Having it be the container of the
> thread group leader seems quite reasonable to me.
> 
>> I see that we probably mean the same
>> thing, except that you suggest using a pointer to the task_struct from
>> mm_struct, which I am against in principle, due to the complexity of
>> changing owners frequently if the number of threads keep exiting at
>> a rapid rate.
> 
> In the general case the thread group leader won't be exiting, so there
> shouldn't be much need to update it.
> 

> Paul
> 


-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL


More information about the Containers mailing list