From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id m9L5eKGl023140 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:40:21 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99182AC026 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:40:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.96]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839EC12C046 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:40:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6C01DB803B for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:40:20 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml11.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml11.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.101]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A2181DB8037 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:40:20 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:39:55 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/5] memcg: replace res_counter Message-Id: <20081021143955.eeb86d49.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <48FD6901.6050301@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20081017194804.fce28258.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20081017195601.0b9abda1.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <6599ad830810201253u3bca41d4rabe48eb1ec1d529f@mail.gmail.com> <20081021101430.d2629a81.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48FD6901.6050301@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: Paul Menage , Daisuke Nishimura , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:00:41 +0530 Balbir Singh wrote: > > 1. It's harmful to increase size of *generic* res_counter. So, modifing > > res_counter only for us is not a choice. > > 2. Operation should be done under a lock. We have to do > > -page + swap in atomic, at least. > > 3. We want to pack all member into a cache-line, multiple res_counter > > is no good. > > 4. I hate res_counter ;) > > > > What do you hate about it? I'll review the patchset in detail (I am currently > unwell, but I'll definitely take a look later). > Just because I feel this kind of *generic* counter can be an obstacle to do aggressive special optimization for some resource. But I don't want to argue this now. I'll rewrite and avoid to add new mem_counter. (and use 2 res_counters.) Core logic will not be changed very much but.... Anyway, I'll go to the way which doesn't bother anyone. BTW, "allocate all page_cgroup at boot" patch goes to Linus' git. Wow. 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