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> [2009-03-10 14:53:34]:

> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:18:44 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > * 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]:
> > > 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. 
> > 
> 
> I'm now rewriting to use res_counter but do you have any good reason to
> irq-off in res_counter ?
> It seems there are no callers in irq path.

I have two proposals currently in mind

1. Convert the basic counter to atomic_long, 32 bit systems might need
   more consideration, since they use int for atomic_t
2. Use seq_lock's and see if that helps scalability.

I'll try and get to them shortly, unless someone else gets to them
first.

-- 
	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>