[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <485CC255.9010504@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:26:53 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce task cgroup v2
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 6:32 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> honestly, I used res_counter on early version.
>> but I got bad performance.
>
> Bad performance on the charge/uncharge?
>
> The only difference I can see is that res_counter uses
> spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore(), and you're using plain
> spin_lock()/spin_unlock().
>
> Is the overhead of a pushf/cli/popf really going to matter compared
> with the overhead of forking/exiting a task?
>
> Or approaching this from the other side, does res_counter really need
> irq-safe locking, or is it just being cautious?
We really need irq-safe locking. We can end up uncharging from reclaim context
(called under zone->lru_lock and mem->zone->lru_lock - held with interrupts
disabled)
I am going to convert the spin lock to a reader writers lock, so that reads from
user space do not cause contention. I'll experiment and look at the overhead.
--
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