[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E6F9CC4.2000601@parallels.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:11:16 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>
CC: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <xemul@...allels.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hiroyouki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] per-cgroup tcp buffer limitation
On 09/13/2011 03:09 PM, Paul Menage wrote:
> Each set of counters (user, kernel, total) will have its own locks,
> contention and other overheads to keep up to date. If userspace
> doesn't care about one or two of the three, then that's mostly wasted.
>
> Now it might be that the accounting of all three can be done with
> little more overhead than that required to update just a split view or
> just a unified view, in which case there's much less argument against
> simplifying and tracking/charging/limiting all three.
What if they are all updated under the same lock ?
The lock argument is very well valid for accounting vs not accounting
kernel memory. But once it is accounted, which counter we account to, I
think, is less of a problem.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists