Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753066Ab1FBM7n (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:59:43 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:35159 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751288Ab1FBM7l convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2011 08:59:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=X+IPS0Ipu0FUmNa9JwhM6m5dGcQTn92Nk8Mup1vnZvAv3n7L8z5x2DgaEaHMudv4q8 rw9jBpE1jGl0K6n/DzixdJl9RcTgldx1x9S/7vXGIYI25S5lmIVhYrwnGR4SNuqXojMk vcfzRJPd183LuVw6X2zgMb5/W6wMzg4Hrulac= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110602100007.GB20725@cmpxchg.org> References: <1306909519-7286-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20110602073335.GA20630@cmpxchg.org> <20110602100007.GB20725@cmpxchg.org> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 21:59:40 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch 0/8] mm: memcg naturalization -rc2 From: Hiroyuki Kamezawa To: Johannes Weiner Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Daisuke Nishimura , Balbir Singh , Ying Han , Michal Hocko , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Minchan Kim , KOSAKI Motohiro , Mel Gorman , Greg Thelen , Michel Lespinasse , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2588 Lines: 70 2011/6/2 Johannes Weiner : > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:06:51PM +0900, Hiroyuki Kamezawa wrote: >> 2011/6/2 Johannes Weiner : >> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:52:47AM +0900, Hiroyuki Kamezawa wrote: >> >> ? Hmm, how about splitting patch 2/8 into small patches and see what happens in >> >> ? 3.2 or 3.3 ? While that, we can make softlimit works better. >> >> ? (and once we do 2/8, our direction will be fixed to the direction to >> >> remove global LRU.) >> > >> > Do you have specific parts in mind that could go stand-alone? >> > >> > One thing I can think of is splitting up those parts: >> > >> > ?1. move /target/ reclaim to generic code >> > >> > ?2. convert /global/ reclaim from global lru to hierarchy reclaim >> > ? ? including root_mem_cgroup >> >> Hmm, at brief look >> patch 2/8 >> ?- hierarchy walk rewrite code should be stand alone and can be merged >> 1st, as clean-up > > You mean introducing mem_cgroup_hierarchy_walk() and make use of it in > mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim() as a first step? > yes. I like to cut out a patch from a series and forward it to mainline, and make the series smaller. in some way... >> ?- root cgroup LRU handling was required for performance. I think we >> removed tons of >> ? atomic ops and can remove that special handling personally. But this change of >> ? root cgroup handling should be in separate patch. with performance report. > > I disagree. > > With view on the whole patch series, linking ungrouped process pages > to the root_mem_cgroup is traded against > > ? 1. linking ungrouped process pages to the global LRU > > ? 2. linking grouped process pages to both the global LRU and the > ? ? ?memcg LRU > > The comparison you propose is neither fair nor relevant because it > would never make sense to merge that patch without the others. If you show there is no performance regression when - memory cgroup is configured. - it's not disabled by boot option - there are only ROOT cgroup. (Then, I'd like to see score.) It seems your current series is a mixture of 2 works as "re-desgin of softlimit" and "removal of global LRU". I don't understand why you need 2 works at once. Above test is for the latter. You need another justification for the former. So, I'd like to ask you to divide the series into 2 series. Thanks, -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/