From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:19:43 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [-mm] [PATCH 0/4] memcg : radix-tree page_cgroup v2 Message-Id: <20080327191943.e0424fa4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <47EB6EB5.5050808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20080327174435.e69f5b45.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080327175654.C749.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080327183415.166db9ad.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <47EB6EB5.5050808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl List-ID: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:23:57 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > >>> TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX > >>> (1) Execl Throughput 43.0 2868.8 667.2 > >>> (2) Execl Throughput 43.0 2810.3 653.6 > >>> (3) Execl Throughput 43.0 2836.9 659.7 > >>> (4) Execl Throughput 43.0 2846.0 661.9 > >>> (5) Execl Throughput 43.0 2862.0 665.6 > >>> (6) Execl Throughput 43.0 3110.0 723.3 > >>> > >>> (1) .... rc5-mm1 + memory controller > >>> (2) .... patch 1/4 is applied. (use radix-tree always.) > >>> (3) .... patch [1-3]/4 are applied. (caching by percpu) > >>> (4) .... patch [1-4]/4 are applied. (uses prefetch) > >>> (5) .... adjust sizeof(struct page) to be 64 bytes by padding. > >>> (6) .... rc5-mm1 *without* memory controller > >> I am very surprised this result. > >> 723.3 -> 667.2 seems large performance impact. > >> > >> Why do you need count resource usage when unlimited limit. > >> Could you separate unlimited group to resource usage counting and no counting. > >> I hope default cgroup keep no counting and no decrease performance. > > > > At first, I'd like to reduce this overhead even under memory resource > > controller's accounting ;) > > We have boot-time-disable option now. But it doesn't seem what you want. > > > > Considering workaround.... > > In current system, *unlimited* doesn't mean *no account*. > > So, I think we have an option to add "no account" flag per cgroup. > > > > Hmm..some interface to do > > - allow "no account" -> "account" > > - disallow "account" -> "no account" > > > > Balbir-san, how do you think ? > > The reason we do accounting for default group is to allow reporting of > usage/statistics and in the future when we do hierarchial accounting and > control, it will be much more useful. > I see. > I like the interface idea, but I'd like to do two things > > 1. Keeping accounting on by default or have an option to do so > 2. Reduce the memory controller overhead > I'll do something against "1" if I can think of. I'd like to try "2" after this patches. Maybe reducing lock-bouncing can be good help... Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org