Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757942AbZLOHsO (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:48:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756414AbZLOHsN (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:48:13 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f221.google.com ([209.85.220.221]:35073 "EHLO mail-fx0-f221.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753664AbZLOHsM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:48:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091215103517.75645536.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <747ea0ec22b9348208c80f86f7a813728bf8e50a.1260571675.git.kirill@shutemov.name> <20091212125046.14df3134.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> <20091212233409.60da66fb.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> <20091215103517.75645536.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:48:09 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] memcg: rework usage of stats by soft limit From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Menage , Li Zefan , Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh , Pavel Emelyanov , Dan Malek , Vladislav Buzov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2080 Lines: 51 On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:35 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:46:08 +0200 > "Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Daisuke Nishimura >> wrote: >> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:06:52 +0200 >> > "Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Daisuke Nishimura >> >> wrote: >> >> > And IIUC, it's the same for your threshold feature, right ? >> >> > I think it would be better: >> >> > >> >> > - discard this change. >> >> > - in 4/4, rename mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check to mem_cgroup_event_check, >> >> >  and instead of adding a new STAT counter, do like: >> >> > >> >> >        if (mem_cgroup_event_check(mem)) { >> >> >                mem_cgroup_update_tree(mem, page); >> >> >                mem_cgroup_threshold(mem); >> >> >        } >> >> >> >> I think that mem_cgroup_update_tree() and mem_cgroup_threshold() should be >> >> run with different frequency. How to share MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS >> >> between soft limits and thresholds in this case? >> >> >> > hmm, both softlimit and your threshold count events at the same place(charge and uncharge). >> > So, I think those events can be shared. >> > Is there any reason they should run in different frequency ? >> >> SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_THRESH is 1000. If use the same value for thresholds, >> a threshold can >> be exceed on 1000*nr_cpu_id pages. It's too many. I think, that 100 is >> a reasonable value. >> > > Hmm, then what amount of costs does this code add ? > > Do you have benchmark result ? I've post some numbers how the patchset affects performance: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/41880 Do you need any other results? -- 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/