Re: [PATCH 3/5] Memory controller soft limit organize cgroups (v7)

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:52:44 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> I don't see why you are harping about something that you might think
> is a problem and want to over-optimize even without tests. Fix
> something when you can see the problem, on my system I don't see it. I
> am willing to consider alternatives or moving away from the current
> coding style *iff* it needs to be redone for better performance.
> 

It's usually true that "For optimize system, don't do anything unnecessary".
And the patch increase size of res_counter_charge from 236bytes to 295bytes.
on my compliler.

And this is called at every charge if the check is unnecessary.
(i.e. the _real_ check itself is done once in a HZ/?)

Thanks
-Kame


> What I am proposing is that we do iterative development, get the
> functionality right and then if needed tune for performance.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 	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>
> 

--
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>