[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100825104240.7dbaba6a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:42:40 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org,
"nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
"balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
gthelen@...gle.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kamezawa.hiroyuki@...il.com,
"lizf@...fujitsu.com" <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] cgroup: ID notification call back
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:35:00 -0700
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:03 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. How this pseudo code looks like ? This passes "new id" via
> > cgroup->subsys[array] at creation. (Using union will be better, maybe).
> >
>
> That's rather ugly. I was thinking of something more like this. (Not
> even compiled yet, and the only subsystem updated is cpuset).
>
Hmm, but placing css and subsystem's its own structure in different cache line
can increase cacheline/TLB miss, I think.
I wonder I should stop this patch series and do small thing.
I prefer to call alloc_css_id() by ->create() call by subsys's its own decistion
is much better and cleaner. (as my original design)
mem_cgroup_create()
{
cgroup_attach_css_id(ss, cgrp, &mem->css);
}
And then, there will be no difficulty.
Do we have to call alloc_css_id() in kernel/cgroup.c ?
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