Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753847AbbGBB1C (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2015 21:27:02 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com ([209.85.220.172]:33865 "EHLO mail-qk0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753302AbbGBB0z (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jul 2015 21:26:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 21:26:51 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Jan Kara Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, vgoyal@redhat.com, lizefan@huawei.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.cz, clm@fb.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com, david@fromorbit.com, gthelen@google.com, khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/51] writeback: let balance_dirty_pages() work on the matching cgroup bdi_writeback Message-ID: <20150702012651.GD26440@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1432329245-5844-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1432329245-5844-27-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20150630143100.GL7252@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150630143100.GL7252@quack.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1176 Lines: 34 Hello, Jan. On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 04:31:00PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: ... > > + if (inode_cgwb_enabled(inode)) > > + wb = wb_get_create_current(bdi, GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!wb) > > + wb = &bdi->wb; > > + > > So this effectively adds a radix tree lookup (of wb belonging to memcg) for > every set_page_dirty() call. That seems relatively costly to me. And all Hmmm... idk, radix tree lookups should be cheap especially when shallow and set_page_dirty(). It's a glorified array indexing. If not, we should really be improving radix tree implementation. That said, > that just to check wb->dirty_exceeded. Cannot we just use inode_to_wb() > instead? I understand results may be different if multiple memcgs share an > inode and that's the reason why you use wb_get_create_current(), right? > But for dirty_exceeded check it may be good enough? Yeah, that probably should work. I'll think more about it. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/