[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150716092841.GA2001@esperanza>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:28:41 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
To: Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andreslc@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm v8 4/7] proc: add kpagecgroup file
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:03:18PM -0700, Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote:
> For both /proc/kpage* interfaces you add (and more critically for the
> rmap-causing one, kpageidle):
>
> It's a good idea to do cond_sched(). Whether after each pfn, each Nth
> pfn, each put_user, I leave to you, but a reasonable cadence is
> needed, because user-space can call this on the entire physical
> address space, and that's a lot of work to do without re-scheduling.
I really don't think it's necessary. These files can only be
read/written by the root, who has plenty ways to kill the system anyway.
The program that is allowed to read/write these files must be conscious
and do it in batches of reasonable size. AFAICS the same reasoning
already lays behind /proc/kpagecount and /proc/kpageflag, which also do
not thrust the "right" batch size on their readers.
Thanks,
Vladimir
--
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