[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150702012651.GD26440@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 21:26:51 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
vgoyal@...hat.com, lizefan@...wei.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, mhocko@...e.cz, clm@...com,
fengguang.wu@...el.com, david@...morbit.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/51] writeback: let balance_dirty_pages() work on the
matching cgroup bdi_writeback
Hello, Jan.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 04:31:00PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
...
> > + if (inode_cgwb_enabled(inode))
> > + wb = wb_get_create_current(bdi, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!wb)
> > + wb = &bdi->wb;
> > +
>
> So this effectively adds a radix tree lookup (of wb belonging to memcg) for
> every set_page_dirty() call. That seems relatively costly to me. And all
Hmmm... idk, radix tree lookups should be cheap especially when
shallow and set_page_dirty(). It's a glorified array indexing. If
not, we should really be improving radix tree implementation. That
said,
> that just to check wb->dirty_exceeded. Cannot we just use inode_to_wb()
> instead? I understand results may be different if multiple memcgs share an
> inode and that's the reason why you use wb_get_create_current(), right?
> But for dirty_exceeded check it may be good enough?
Yeah, that probably should work. I'll think more about it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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