From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:06:29 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] memcg:: seq_ops support for cgroup Message-Id: <20080521150629.c22cb81e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830805202206v334cb933t5b493988e01b3b21@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080520180552.601da567.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080520180841.f292beef.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830805201146g5a2a8928l6a2f5adc51b15f15@mail.gmail.com> <20080521092849.c2f0b7e1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830805202206v334cb933t5b493988e01b3b21@mail.gmail.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: Paul Menage Cc: LKML , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "xemul@openvz.org" , "lizf@cn.fujitsu.com" , "yamamoto@valinux.co.jp" List-ID: On Tue, 20 May 2008 22:06:48 -0700 "Paul Menage" wrote: > > > > And (*read) method isn't useful ;) > > > > Can we add new stat file dynamically ? > > Yes, there's no reason we can't do that. Right now it's not possible > to remove a control file without deleting the cgroup, but I have a > patch that supports removal. > Good news. I'll wait for. > The question is whether it's better to have one file per CPU/node or > one large complex file. > For making the kernel simple, one-file-per-entity(cpu/node...) is better. For making the applications simple, one big file is better. I think recent interfaces uses one-file-per-entity method. So I vote for it for this numastat. One concern is size of cpu/node. It can be 1024...4096 depends on environment. open/close 4096 files took some amount of cpu time. (And that's why 'ps' command is slow on big system.) 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