Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:51:40 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp>, yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp,
       righi.andrea@gmail.com, menage@google.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
       guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, agk@sourceware.org,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, axboe@kernel.dk, baramsori72@gmail.com,
       chlunde@ping.uio.no, dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dpshah@google.com,
       eric.rannaud@gmail.com, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, taka@valinux.co.jp,
       lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, matt@bluehost.com, dradford@bluehost.com,
       ngupta@google.com, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, roberto@unbit.it,
       s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
       containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller
Message-Id: <20090417175140.9e285acf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090417174854.07aeec9f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <1239740480-28125-4-git-send-email-righi.andrea@gmail.com>
	<49E7E037.9080004@oss.ntt.co.jp>
	<20090417112433.085ed604.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20090417.162201.183038478.ryov@valinux.co.jp>
	<20090417170016.5c7268f1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20090417174854.07aeec9f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1969
Lines: 53

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:48:54 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:00:16 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:22:01 +0900 (JST)
> > Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp> wrote:
> > 
> > > In the case where the bio-cgroup data is allocated dynamically,
> > >    - Sometimes quite a large amount of memory get marked dirty.
> > >      In this case it requires more kernel memory than that of the
> > >      current implementation.
> > >    - The operation is expansive due to memory allocations and exclusive
> > >      controls by such as spinlocks.
> > > 
> > > In the case where the bio-cgroup data is allocated by delayed allocation, 
> > >   - It makes the operation complicated and expensive, because
> > >     sometimes a bio has to be created in the context of other
> > >     processes, such as aio and swap-out operation.
> > > 
> > > I'd prefer a simple and lightweight implementation. bio-cgroup only
> > > needs 4bytes unlike memory controller. The reason why bio-cgroup chose
> > > this approach is to minimize the overhead.
> > > 
> > My point is, plz do your best to reduce memory usage here. You increase
> > size of page_cgroup just because you cannot increase size of struct page.
> > It's not be sane reason to increase size of this object.
> > It's a cheat in my point of view.
> > 
> 
> Can't this work sanely ?
> Hmm, endian is obstacle ?
> ==
> 	sturct page_cgroup {
> 		union {
> 			struct {
> 				unsigned long memcg_field:16;
> 				unsigned long blockio_field:16;
> 			} field;
> 			unsigned long flags; /* unsigned long is not 32bits */
> 		} flags;
> 	}
> ==
> 
....sorry plz ignore.
-Kame

--
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/