[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1fy8bwqps.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:00:15 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...ru>
Cc: balbir@...ibm.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] Resource counters
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at> 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 the resource is acquired ...
Atomic operations versus locks is only a granularity thing.
You still need the cache line which is the cost on SMP.
Are you using atomic_add_return or atomic_add_unless or
are you performing you actions in two separate steps which
is racy? What I have seen indicates you are using a racy two separate
operation form.
>> If we'll remove failcnt this would look like
>> while (atomic_cmpxchg(...))
>> which is also not that good.
>>
>> Moreover - in RSS accounting patches I perform page list
>> manipulations under this lock, so this also saves one atomic op.
>
> it still hasn't been shown that this kind of RSS limit
> doesn't add big time overhead to normal operations
> (inside and outside of such a resource container)
>
> note that the 'usual' memory accounting is much more
> lightweight and serves similar purposes ...
Perhaps....
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists