Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:01:46 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/12] memcg updates v5 |
| |
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:48:58 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >>> Hi, I updated the stack and reflected comments. >>> Against the latest mmotm. (rc7-mm1) >>> >>> Major changes from previous one is >>> - page_cgroup allocation/lookup manner is changed. >>> all FLATMEM/DISCONTIGMEM/SPARSEMEM and MEMORY_HOTPLUG is supported. >>> - force_empty is totally rewritten. and a problem that "force_empty takes long time" >>> in previous version is fixed (I think...) >>> - reordered patches. >>> - first half are easy ones. >>> - second half are big ones. >>> >>> I'm still testing with full debug option. No problem found yet. >>> (I'm afraid of race condition which have not been caught yet.) >>> >>> [1/12] avoid accounting special mappings not on LRU. (fix) >>> [2/12] move charege() call to swapped-in page under lock_page() (clean up) >>> [3/12] make root cgroup to be unlimited. (change semantics.) >>> [4/12] make page->mapping NULL before calling uncharge (clean up) >>> [5/12] make page->flags to use atomic ops. (changes in infrastructure) >>> [6/12] optimize stat. (clean up) >>> [7/12] add support function for moving account. (new function) >>> [8/12] rewrite force_empty to use move_account. (change semantics.) >>> [9/12] allocate all page_cgroup at boot. (changes in infrastructure) >>> [10/12] free page_cgroup from LRU in lazy way (optimize) >>> [11/12] add page_cgroup to LRU in lazy way (optimize) >>> [12/12] fix race at charging swap (fix by new logic.) >>> >>> *Any* comment is welcome. >> Kame, >> >> I'm beginning to review test the patches now. It would be really nice to split >> the development patches from the maintenance ones. I think the full patchset has >> too many things and is confusing to look at. >> > I hope I can do....but maybe difficult. > If you give me ack, 1,2,4,6, can be pushed at early stage.
I think (1) might be OK, except for the accounting issues pointed out (change in behaviour visible to end user again, sigh! :( ). Is (1) a serious issue? (2) seems OK, except for the locking change for mark_page_accessed. I am looking at (4) and (6) currently.
-- Balbir
| |