From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF4D86B0047 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id nBF1cP2n002903 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:38:25 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08B4D45DE7B for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:38:25 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8EB45DE60 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:38:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A15BC1DB8048 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:38:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026C11DB803F for ; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:38:24 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:35:17 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] memcg: rework usage of stats by soft limit Message-Id: <20091215103517.75645536.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <747ea0ec22b9348208c80f86f7a813728bf8e50a.1260571675.git.kirill@shutemov.name> <20091212125046.14df3134.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> <20091212233409.60da66fb.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Menage , Li Zefan , Andrew Morton , Balbir Singh , Pavel Emelyanov , Dan Malek , Vladislav Buzov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:46:08 +0200 "Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote: > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Daisuke Nishimura > wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:06:52 +0200 > > "Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Daisuke Nishimura > >> wrote: > >> > And IIUC, it's the same for your threshold feature, right ? > >> > I think it would be better: > >> > > >> > - discard this change. > >> > - in 4/4, rename mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check to mem_cgroup_event_check, > >> > A and instead of adding a new STAT counter, do like: > >> > > >> > A A A A if (mem_cgroup_event_check(mem)) { > >> > A A A A A A A A mem_cgroup_update_tree(mem, page); > >> > A A A A A A A A mem_cgroup_threshold(mem); > >> > A A A A } > >> > >> I think that mem_cgroup_update_tree() and mem_cgroup_threshold() should be > >> run with different frequency. How to share MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS > >> between soft limits and thresholds in this case? > >> > > hmm, both softlimit and your threshold count events at the same place(charge and uncharge). > > So, I think those events can be shared. > > Is there any reason they should run in different frequency ? > > SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_THRESH is 1000. If use the same value for thresholds, > a threshold can > be exceed on 1000*nr_cpu_id pages. It's too many. I think, that 100 is > a reasonable value. > Hmm, then what amount of costs does this code add ? Do you have benchmark result ? 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