Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] memcg: add softlimit interface and utilitiy function.

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-09 16:55:07]:

> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:14:49 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-09 16:39:07]:
> > 
> > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > > Adds an interface for defining sotlimit per memcg. (no handler in this patch.)
> > > softlimit.priority and queue for softlimit is added in the next patch.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Changelog v1->v2:
> > >  - For refactoring, divided a patch into 2 part and this patch just
> > >    involves memory.softlimit interface.
> > >  - Removed governor-detect routine, it was buggy in design.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > > ---
> > >  mm/memcontrol.c |   62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> > This patch breaks the semantics of resource counters. We would like to
> > use resource counters to track all overhead. I've refined my tracking
> > to an extent that the overhead does not show up at all, unless soft
> > limits kick in. I oppose keeping soft limits outside of resource
> > counters.
> 
> Hmm, them, moving mem->softlimit to res->softlimit is ok ?
> 
> If no more "branch" to res_counter_charge/uncharge(), moving this to
> res_counter is ok to me.
>

There is a branch, but the additional excessive checks are gone.
It should be possible to reduce the overhead to comparisons though. 

-- 
	Balbir

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>