Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:30:43 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] memg: better numa scanning |
| |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:00:42 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:
> On Tue 09-08-11 19:08:24, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > Making memcg numa's scanning information update by schedule_work(). > > > > Now, memcg's numa information is updated under a thread doing > > memory reclaim. It's not very heavy weight now. But upcoming updates > > around numa scanning will add more works. This patch makes > > the update be done by schedule_work() and reduce latency caused > > by this updates. > > I am not sure whether this pays off. Anyway, I think it would be better > to place this patch somewhere at the end of the series so that we can > measure its impact separately. >
I'll consider reordering when I come back from vacation.
> > > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> > > Otherwise looks good to me. > Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> >
Thanks.
> Just a minor nit bellow. > > > --- > > mm/memcontrol.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > Index: mmotm-Aug3/mm/memcontrol.c > > =================================================================== > > --- mmotm-Aug3.orig/mm/memcontrol.c > > +++ mmotm-Aug3/mm/memcontrol.c > > @@ -285,6 +285,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup { > > nodemask_t scan_nodes; > > atomic_t numainfo_events; > > atomic_t numainfo_updating; > > + struct work_struct numainfo_update_work; > > #endif > > /* > > * Should the accounting and control be hierarchical, per subtree? > > @@ -1567,6 +1568,23 @@ static bool test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaim > > } > > #if MAX_NUMNODES > 1 > > > > +static void mem_cgroup_numainfo_update_work(struct work_struct *work) > > +{ > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg; > > + int nid; > > + > > + memcg = container_of(work, struct mem_cgroup, numainfo_update_work); > > + > > + memcg->scan_nodes = node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]; > > + for_each_node_mask(nid, node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]) { > > + if (!test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaimable(memcg, nid, false)) > > + node_clear(nid, memcg->scan_nodes); > > + } > > + atomic_set(&memcg->numainfo_updating, 0); > > + css_put(&memcg->css); > > +} > > + > > + > > /* > > * Always updating the nodemask is not very good - even if we have an empty > > * list or the wrong list here, we can start from some node and traverse all > > @@ -1575,7 +1593,6 @@ static bool test_mem_cgroup_node_reclaim > > */ > > Would be good to update the function comment as well (we still have 10s > period there). >
ok.
Thanks, -Kame
| |