[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <501039F9.7040309@parallels.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:24:57 +0400
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] slab: allow enable_cpu_cache to use preset values
for its tunables
On 07/25/2012 09:05 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> SLAB allows us to tune a particular cache behavior with tunables.
>> When creating a new memcg cache copy, we'd like to preserve any tunables
>> the parent cache already had.
>
> So does SLUB but I do not see a patch for that allocator.
>
It is certainly not through does the same method as SLAB, right ?
Writing to /proc/slabinfo gives me an I/O error
I assume it is something through sysfs, but schiming through the code
now, I can't find any per-cache tunables. Would you mind pointing me to
them?
In any case, are you happy with the SLAB one, and how they are propagated?
--
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