[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100803040645.GH3863@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:36:45 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
vgoyal@...hat.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 5/5] memcg: use spinlock in page_cgroup instead of
bit_spinlock
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> [2010-08-02 19:20:06]:
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>
> This patch replaces bit_spinlock with spinlock. In general,
> spinlock has good functinality than bit_spin_lock and we should use
> it if we have a room for it. In 64bit arch, we have extra 4bytes.
> Let's use it.
> expected effects:
> - use better codes.
> - ticket lock on x86-64
> - para-vitualization aware lock
> etc..
>
> Chagelog: 20090729
> - fixed page_cgroup_is_locked().
>
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> --
The additional space usage is a big concern, I think saving space
would be of highest priority. I understand the expected benefits, but
a spinlock_t per page_cgroup is quite expensive at the moment. If
anything I think it should be a config option under CONFIG_DEBUG or
something else to play with and see the side effects.
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
--
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