lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 0/8] Request for inclusion: tcp memory buffers
    On 10/14/2011 12:12 AM, David Miller wrote:
    > From: Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com>
    > Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:05:58 +0400
    >
    >> Also, I kind of dispute the affirmation that !cgroup will encompass
    >> the majority of users, since cgroups is being enabled by default by
    >> most vendors. All systemd based systems use it extensively, for
    >> instance.
    >
    > I will definitely advise people against this, since the cost of having
    > this on by default is absolutely non-trivial.
    >
    > People keep asking every few releases "where the heck has my performance
    > gone" and it's because of creeping features like this. This socket
    > cgroup feature is a prime example of where that kind of stuff comes
    > from.
    >
    > I really get irritated when people go "oh, it's just one indirect
    > function call" and "oh, it's just one more pointer in struct sock"
    >
    > We work really hard to _remove_ elements from structures and make them
    > smaller, and to remove expensive operations from the fast paths.
    >
    > It might take someone weeks if not months to find a way to make a
    > patch which compensates for the extra overhead your patches are adding.
    >
    > And I don't think you fully appreciate that.

    Let's focus on this:
    Are you happy, or at least willing to accept, an approach that keep
    things as they were with cgroups *compiled out*, or were you referring
    to not in use == compiled in, but with no users?



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-13 22:17    [W:0.021 / U:187.496 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site