[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090706085323.cc4b6133.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 08:53:23 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Blum <bblum@...gle.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lizf@...fujitzu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Adds a read-only "procs" file similar to "tasks"
that shows only unique tgids
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 09:10:58 -0700
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> 2009/7/3 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>:
> > Anyway, above algorithm shows that it's enough to have per-cgroup bitmap
> > (size can be dinamically changed) rather than big table and ugly sort().
> > How about adding per-cgroup taskid bitmap ?
> > clear/set is very easy.
> >
>
> A per-cgroup bitmap of task ids would mean (assuming that it's
> implemented as a sparse tree like an IDA) that you'd add extra
> allocations and possible failure points in the fork path - right now
> the fork overhead imposed by the cgroups framework itself is just
> linking yourself into your parent's css_set and bumping its refcount.
> I guess there probably are workloads where doing more work at
> fork/exit time and less at "tasks" scan time is a win, but that has to
> be balanced against those where fork/exit performance is more
> critical, and the fact that it would be adding another way that fork
> could fail.
>
ok.
But "sorting" at procs file seems not sane ;)
-Kame
> Paul
>
--
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