[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABEgKgrkQ=asB2WExQb1KTd1MyoWDwJCO2_u2cJC4toEUa3C4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 08:21:31 +0900
From: Hiroyuki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyuki@...il.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: inux-next: Tree for Apr 27 (uml + mm/memcontrol.c)
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:57 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2012, David Rientjes wrote:
>
>> Is this a claim that memory-intensive workloads will have the exact same
>> performance with and without memcg enabled?
>
> I've just run specjbb2005 three times on my system both with and without
> cgroup_disable=memory on the command line and it is consistently 1% faster
> without memcg.
Hm, ok. Where is that overheads from ? Do you have perf output ?
I'll need to check what is bad.
> If I add XX:+UseLargePages to the command line to use
> hugepages it's even larger. So why must I incur this performance
> degradation if I simply want to control who may mmap hugepages out of the
> global pool?
Is that common use case ? If he wants to do some resource control,
common users will limit usual memory, too. That kinds of too much flexibility
makes cgroup complicated, hard-to-use.
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