[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47DDCE5E.9020104@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:20:22 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Sudhir Kumar <skumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamamoto@...inux.co.jp>, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, taka@...inux.co.jp,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][0/3] Virtual address space control for cgroups
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> This is an early patchset for virtual address space control for cgroups.
>> The patches are against 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 and have been tested on top of
>> User Mode Linux.
>
> What's the performance hit of doing these accounting checks on every
> mmap/munmap? If it's not totally lost in the noise, couldn't it be
> made a separate control group, so that it could be just enabled (and
> the performance hit taken) for users that actually want it?
>
I am yet to measure the performance overhead of the accounting checks. I'll try
and get started on that today. I did not consider making it a separate system,
because I suspect that anybody wanting memory control would also want address
space control (for the advantages listed in the documentation). I am not against
the idea of making it a separate subsystem, but first let me get back with the
numbers.
--
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 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