lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 3/8] foundations of per-cgroup memory pressure controlling.
On 10/04/2011 04:57 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:18:38 +0400
> Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com> wrote:
>
>> This patch converts struct sock fields memory_pressure,
>> memory_allocated, sockets_allocated, and sysctl_mem (now prot_mem)
>> to function pointers, receiving a struct mem_cgroup parameter.
>>
>> enter_memory_pressure is kept the same, since all its callers
>> have socket a context, and the kmem_cgroup can be derived from
>> the socket itself.
>>
>> To keep things working, the patch convert all users of those fields
>> to use acessor functions.
>>
>> In my benchmarks I didn't see a significant performance difference
>> with this patch applied compared to a baseline (around 1 % diff, thus
>> inside error margin).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@parallels.com>
>> CC: David S. Miller<davem@davemloft.net>
>> CC: Hiroyouki Kamezawa<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
>> CC: Eric W. Biederman<ebiederm@xmission.com>
>
> A nitpick.
>
>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_INET
>> struct sock;
>> +struct proto;
>> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
>> void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk);
>> void sock_release_memcg(struct sock *sk);
>> -
>> +void memcg_sock_mem_alloc(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct proto *prot,
>> + int amt, int *parent_failure);
>> +void memcg_sock_mem_free(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct proto *prot, int amt);
>> +void memcg_sockets_allocated_dec(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct proto *prot);
>> +void memcg_sockets_allocated_inc(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct proto *prot);
>> #else
>> +/* memcontrol includes sockets.h, that includes memcontrol.h ... */
>> +static inline void memcg_sock_mem_alloc(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
>> + struct proto *prot, int amt,
>> + int *parent_failure)
>> +{
>> +}
>
> In these days, at naming memory cgroup pointers, we use "memcg" instead of
> "mem". So, could you use "memcg" for represeinting memory cgroup ?
>
>
>> +
>> +void memcg_sock_mem_alloc(struct mem_cgroup *mem, struct proto *prot,
>> + int amt, int *parent_failure)
>> +{
>> + mem = parent_mem_cgroup(mem);
>> + for (; mem != NULL; mem = parent_mem_cgroup(mem)) {
>> + long alloc;
>> + long *prot_mem = prot->prot_mem(mem);
>> + /*
>> + * Large nestings are not the common case, and stopping in the
>> + * middle would be complicated enough, that we bill it all the
>> + * way through the root, and if needed, unbill everything later
>> + */
>> + alloc = atomic_long_add_return(amt,
>> + prot->memory_allocated(mem));
>> + *parent_failure |= (alloc> prot_mem[2]);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(memcg_sock_mem_alloc);
>
> Hmm. why not using res_counter ? for reusing 'unbill' code ?
>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
Well, besides the cost, we'd have atomic_t for !cgroups, and res_counter
for cgroups. I think there is value in keeping them the same.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-04 09:17    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean