lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 3/8] foundations of per-cgroup memory pressure controlling.
    On Mon,  3 Oct 2011 14:18:38 +0400
    Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com> wrote:

    > This patch converts struct sock fields memory_pressure,
    > memory_allocated, sockets_allocated, and sysctl_mem (now prot_mem)
    > to function pointers, receiving a struct mem_cgroup parameter.
    >
    > enter_memory_pressure is kept the same, since all its callers
    > have socket a context, and the kmem_cgroup can be derived from
    > the socket itself.
    >
    > To keep things working, the patch convert all users of those fields
    > to use acessor functions.
    >
    > In my benchmarks I didn't see a significant performance difference
    > with this patch applied compared to a baseline (around 1 % diff, thus
    > inside error margin).
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
    > CC: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
    > CC: Hiroyouki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
    > CC: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>

    A nitpick.


    > #ifdef CONFIG_INET
    > struct sock;
    > +struct proto;
    > #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
    > void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk);
    > void sock_release_memcg(struct sock *sk);
    > -
    > +void memcg_sock_mem_alloc(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct proto *prot,
    > + int amt, int *parent_failure);
    > +void memcg_sock_mem_free(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct proto *prot, int amt);
    > +void memcg_sockets_allocated_dec(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct proto *prot);
    > +void memcg_sockets_allocated_inc(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct proto *prot);
    > #else
    > +/* memcontrol includes sockets.h, that includes memcontrol.h ... */
    > +static inline void memcg_sock_mem_alloc(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
    > + struct proto *prot, int amt,
    > + int *parent_failure)
    > +{
    > +}

    In these days, at naming memory cgroup pointers, we use "memcg" instead of
    "mem". So, could you use "memcg" for represeinting memory cgroup ?


    > +
    > +void memcg_sock_mem_alloc(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct proto *prot,
    > + int amt, int *parent_failure)
    > +{
    > + mem = parent_mem_cgroup(mem);
    > + for (; mem != NULL; mem = parent_mem_cgroup(mem)) {
    > + long alloc;
    > + long *prot_mem = prot->prot_mem(mem);
    > + /*
    > + * Large nestings are not the common case, and stopping in the
    > + * middle would be complicated enough, that we bill it all the
    > + * way through the root, and if needed, unbill everything later
    > + */
    > + alloc = atomic_long_add_return(amt,
    > + prot->memory_allocated(mem));
    > + *parent_failure |= (alloc > prot_mem[2]);
    > + }
    > +}
    > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(memcg_sock_mem_alloc);

    Hmm. why not using res_counter ? for reusing 'unbill' code ?

    Thanks,
    -Kame



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-04 03:01    [W:0.024 / U:62.324 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site