[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090417174854.07aeec9f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:48:54 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>, yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp,
righi.andrea@...il.com, menage@...gle.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com,
agk@...rceware.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
baramsori72@...il.com, chlunde@...g.uio.no,
dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dpshah@...gle.com, eric.rannaud@...il.com,
fernando@....ntt.co.jp, taka@...inux.co.jp, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
matt@...ehost.com, dradford@...ehost.com, ngupta@...gle.com,
randy.dunlap@...cle.com, roberto@...it.it, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com,
subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:00:16 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:22:01 +0900 (JST)
> Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp> wrote:
>
> > In the case where the bio-cgroup data is allocated dynamically,
> > - Sometimes quite a large amount of memory get marked dirty.
> > In this case it requires more kernel memory than that of the
> > current implementation.
> > - The operation is expansive due to memory allocations and exclusive
> > controls by such as spinlocks.
> >
> > In the case where the bio-cgroup data is allocated by delayed allocation,
> > - It makes the operation complicated and expensive, because
> > sometimes a bio has to be created in the context of other
> > processes, such as aio and swap-out operation.
> >
> > I'd prefer a simple and lightweight implementation. bio-cgroup only
> > needs 4bytes unlike memory controller. The reason why bio-cgroup chose
> > this approach is to minimize the overhead.
> >
> My point is, plz do your best to reduce memory usage here. You increase
> size of page_cgroup just because you cannot increase size of struct page.
> It's not be sane reason to increase size of this object.
> It's a cheat in my point of view.
>
Can't this work sanely ?
Hmm, endian is obstacle ?
==
sturct page_cgroup {
union {
struct {
unsigned long memcg_field:16;
unsigned long blockio_field:16;
} field;
unsigned long flags; /* unsigned long is not 32bits */
} flags;
}
==
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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