From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C30BD6B0047 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:47:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o1C6lrYS016760 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:47:53 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FED45DE6E for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:47:53 +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 119AA45DE4D for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:47:53 +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 DD8B61DB803E for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:47:52 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.103]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C10D1DB803B for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:47:49 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:44:22 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: [PATCH 0/2] memcg patches around event counting...softlimit and thresholds Message-Id: <20100212154422.58bfdc4d.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: "linux-mm@kvack.org" Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , "balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" List-ID: These 2 patches are updates for memcg's event counter. Memcg has 2 counters but they counts the same thing. Just usages are different from each other. This patch tries to combine them. Event counting is done per page but event check is done per charge. But, now, move_task at el. does charge() in batched manner. So, it's better to do event check per page (not per charge.) (*) There may be an opinion that threshold check should be done at charge(). But, at charge(), event counter is not incremented, anyway. Then, some another idea is appreciated to check thresholds at charges. In other view, checking threshold at "precharge" can cause miss-fire of event notifier. So, checking threshold at commit has some sense, I think. I wonder I should add RFC..but this patch clears my concerns since memcg-threshold was merged. So, I didn't. Any comment is welcome. (I'm sorry if my reply is delayed.) 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