[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220824222150.61c516a83bfe0ecb6c9b5348@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 22:21:50 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: page_counter: rearrange struct page_counter
fields
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 21:41:42 -0700 Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > Did you evaluate the effects of using a per-cpu counter of some form?
>
> Do you mean per-cpu counter for usage or something else?
percpu_counter, perhaps. Or some hand-rolled thing if that's more suitable.
> The usage
> needs to be compared against the limits and accumulating per-cpu is
> costly particularly on larger machines,
Well, there are tricks one can play. For example, only run
__percpu_counter_sum() when `usage' is close to its limit.
I'd suggest flinging together a prototype which simply uses
percpu_counter_read() all the time. If the performance testing results
are sufficiently promising, then look into the accuracy issues.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists