From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E0846B005A for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:19:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d28relay01.in.ibm.com (d28relay01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.58]) by e28smtp07.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7CHJj8I008186 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:49:45 +0530 Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (d28av02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.64]) by d28relay01.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n7CHJg6d1380550 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:49:44 +0530 Received: from d28av02.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av02.in.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n7CHJguT010295 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:19:42 +1000 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:49:40 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH] Help Resource Counters Scale better (v4.1) Message-ID: <20090812171940.GD5087@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090811144405.GW7176@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090811163159.ddc5f5fd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090812045716.GH7176@balbir.in.ibm.com> <49a88ef4a1ba9ec9426febe9e3633b89.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49a88ef4a1ba9ec9426febe9e3633b89.squirrel@webmail-b.css.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Andrew Morton , nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, menage@google.com, prarit@redhat.com, andi.kleen@intel.com, xemul@openvz.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-08-13 01:28:57]: > Balbir Singh wrote: > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > Does this look better, could you please replace the older patch with > > this one. > > > > 1. I did a quick compile test > > 2. Ran scripts/checkpatch.pl > > > > In general, seems reasonable to me as quick hack for root cgroup. > thank you. > > Reviewed-by: KAMEAZAWA Hiroyuki > Thanks, yes, we still need to do the percpu counter work, but this will give us breathing space to do it correctly and define strict and non-strict accounting. > Finally, we'll have to do some rework for light-weight res_counter. > But yes, it will take some amount of time. > My only concern is account leak, but, if some leak, it's current code's > bug, not this patch. > Yeah.. we'll need to check for that. > And..hmm...I like following style other than open-coded. > == > int mem_coutner_charge(struct mem_cgroup *mem) > { > if (mem_cgroup_is_root(mem)) > return 0; // always success > return res_counter_charge(....) > } > == > But maybe nitpick. > Yes, we can refactor for simplication, but we'll need some exceptions. I'll do that as an add-on patch. -- 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: email@kvack.org