Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755371AbYCQBwH (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:52:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753159AbYCQBv4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:51:56 -0400 Received: from E23SMTP06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.175]:40201 "EHLO e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752702AbYCQBvz (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:51:55 -0400 Message-ID: <47DDCE5E.9020104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:20:22 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Menage CC: linux-mm@kvack.org, Hugh Dickins , Sudhir Kumar , YAMAMOTO Takashi , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, taka@valinux.co.jp, David Rientjes , Pavel Emelianov , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][0/3] Virtual address space control for cgroups References: <20080316172942.8812.56051.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <6599ad830803161626q1fcf261bta52933bb5e7a6bdd@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830803161626q1fcf261bta52933bb5e7a6bdd@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1274 Lines: 29 Paul Menage wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Balbir Singh wrote: >> This is an early patchset for virtual address space control for cgroups. >> The patches are against 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 and have been tested on top of >> User Mode Linux. > > What's the performance hit of doing these accounting checks on every > mmap/munmap? If it's not totally lost in the noise, couldn't it be > made a separate control group, so that it could be just enabled (and > the performance hit taken) for users that actually want it? > I am yet to measure the performance overhead of the accounting checks. I'll try and get started on that today. I did not consider making it a separate system, because I suspect that anybody wanting memory control would also want address space control (for the advantages listed in the documentation). I am not against the idea of making it a separate subsystem, but first let me get back with the numbers. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- 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/