Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:34:21 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
       cl@linux-foundation.org,
       "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] memcg make use of new percpu implementations
Message-ID: <20091109070421.GD3042@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20091106175242.6e13ee29.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20091106175242.6e13ee29.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1065
Lines: 30

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-11-06 17:52:42]:

> Hi,
> 
> Recent updates on dynamic percpu allocation looks good and I tries to rewrite
> memcg's poor implementation of percpu status counter.
> (It's not NUMA-aware ...)
> Thanks for great works.
> 
> For this time. I added Christoph to CC because I'm not fully sure my usage of
> __this_cpu_xxx is correct...I'm glad if you check the usage when you have time.
> 
> 
> Patch 1/2 is just clean up (prepare for patch 2/2)
> Patch 2/2 is for percpu.
> 
> Tested on my 8cpu box and works well.
> Pathcesa are against the latest mmotm.

How do the test results look? DO you see a significant boost? BTW,
I've been experimenting a bit with the earlier percpu counter patches,
I might post an iteration once I have some good results.

-- 
	Balbir
--
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/