lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-26 11:35    [W:0.421 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site