[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091127114511.bbb43d5a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:45:11 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v0 2/3] res_counter: implement thresholds
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:20:35 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> Hi.
> >
> > @@ -73,6 +76,7 @@ void res_counter_uncharge_locked(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val)
> > val = counter->usage;
> >
> > counter->usage -= val;
> > + res_counter_threshold_notify_locked(counter);
> > }
> >
> hmm.. this adds new checks to hot-path of process life cycle.
>
> Do you have any number on performance impact of these patches(w/o setting any threshold)?
> IMHO, it might be small enough to be ignored because KAMEZAWA-san's coalesce charge/uncharge
> patches have decreased charge/uncharge for res_counter itself, but I want to know just to make sure.
>
Another concern is to support root cgroup, you need another notifier hook in
memcg because root cgroup doesn't use res_counter now.
Can't this be implemented in a way like softlimit check ?
Filter by the number of event will be good for notifier behavior, for avoiding
too much wake up, too.
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