From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9825D6B007E for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n2P3hUJM022645 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:43:30 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E860F45DD78 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:43:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B203E45DD72 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:43:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77481DB8012 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:43:29 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6549C1DB8013 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:43:29 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:42:02 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v7) Message-Id: <20090325124202.3607d373.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090325085505.35d14b38.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20090319165713.27274.94129.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090324173414.GB24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090325085505.35d14b38.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:55:05 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:04:14 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > > I've run lmbench with the soft limit patches and the results show no > > major overhead, there are some outliers and unexpected results. > > > > The outliers are at context-switch 16p/64K, in communicating > > latencies and some unexpected results where the softlimit changes help improve > > performance (I consider these to be in the range of noise). > > > > ok, seems no regressions. but what is the softlimit value ? > I think there result is of course souftlimit=0 case value...right ? > I'll say no more complains to this hooks even while I don't like them. But res_coutner_charge() looks like decolated chocolate cake as _counter_ ;) 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