lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v3)
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-02 15:21:28]:

> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:35:19 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-02 14:32:50]:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:10:43 +0530
> > > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-02 09:24:04]:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:59:59 +0530
> > > > > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > At first, it's said "When cgroup people adds something, the kernel gets slow".
> > > > > This is my start point of reviewing. Below is comments to this version of patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. I think it's bad to add more hooks to res_counter. It's enough slow to give up
> > > > > adding more fancy things..
> > > >
> > > > res_counters was desgined to be extensible, why is adding anything to
> > > > it going to make it slow, unless we turn on soft_limits?
> > > >
> > > You inserted new "if" logic in the core loop.
> > > (What I want to say here is not that this is definitely bad but that "isn't there
> > > any alternatives which is less overhead.)
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. please avoid to add hooks to hot-path. In your patch, especially a hook to
> > > > > mem_cgroup_uncharge_common() is annoying me.
> > > >
> > > > If soft limits are not enabled, the function does a small check and
> > > > leaves.
> > > >
> > > &soft_fail_res is passed always even if memory.soft_limit==ULONG_MAX
> > > res_counter_soft_limit_excess() adds one more function call and spinlock, and irq-off.
> > >
> >
> > OK, I see that overhead.. I'll figure out a way to work around it.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. please avoid to use global spinlock more.
> > > > > no lock is best. mutex is better, maybe.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No lock to update a tree which is update concurrently?
> > > >
> > > Using tree/sort itself is nonsense, I believe.
> > >
> >
> > I tried using prio trees in the past, but they are not easy to update
> > either. I won't mind asking for suggestions for a data structure that
> > can scaled well, allow quick insert/delete and search.
> >
> Now, because the routine is called by kswapd() not by try_to_free.....
>
> It's not necessary to be very very fast. That's my point.
>

OK, I get your point, but whay does that make RB-Tree data structure non-sense?

--
Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-02 07:39    [W:0.095 / U:1.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site