Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:48:07 -0700 | From | "Paul Menage" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] introduce task cgroup v2 |
| |
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:10 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > I am going to convert spinlock in task limit cgroup to atomic_t. > task limit cgroup has following caractatics. > - many write (fork, exit) > - few read > - fork() is performance sensitive systemcall.
This is true, but I don't see how it can be more performance-sensitive than the overhead of allocating/freeing a page.
What kinds of performance regressions did you see?
> if increase fork overhead, system total performance cause degression.
What kind of overhead were you seeing? How about if you delay doing any task accounting until the task_limit subsystem is bound to a hierarchy? That way there's no noticeable overhead for people who aren't using your subsystem.
Paul
| |