Messages in this thread | | | From | James Bottomley <> | Subject | Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] per-cgroup tcp memory pressure | Date | Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:27:12 +0000 |
| |
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:02 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 11/07/2011 01:26 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > This is my new attempt at implementing per-cgroup tcp memory pressure. > > I am particularly interested in what the network folks have to comment on > > it: my main goal is to achieve the least impact possible in the network code. > > > > Here's a brief description of my approach: > > > > When only the root cgroup is present, the code should behave the same way as > > before - with the exception of the inclusion of an extra field in struct sock, > > and one in struct proto. All tests are patched out with static branch, and we > > still access addresses directly - the same as we did before. > > > > When a cgroup other than root is created, we patch in the branches, and account > > resources for that cgroup. The variables in the root cgroup are still updated. > > If we were to try to be 100 % coherent with the memcg code, that should depend > > on use_hierarchy. However, I feel that this is a good compromise in terms of > > leaving the network code untouched, and still having a global vision of its > > resources. I also do not compute max_usage for the root cgroup, for a similar > > reason. > > > > Please let me know what you think of it. > > Dave, Eric, > > Can you let me know what you think of the general approach I've followed > in this series? The impact on the common case should be minimal, or at > least as expensive as a static branch (0 in most arches, I believe). > > I am mostly interested in knowing if this a valid pursue path. I'll be > happy to address any specific concerns you have once you're ok with the > general approach.
Ping on this, please. We're blocked on this patch set until we can get an ack that the approach is acceptable to network people.
Thanks,
James
| |