Re: [PATCH -mm 5/5] memcg: use spinlock in page_cgroup instead of bit_spinlock

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-08-02 19:20:06]:

> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> 
> This patch replaces bit_spinlock with spinlock. In general,
> spinlock has good functinality than bit_spin_lock and we should use
> it if we have a room for it. In 64bit arch, we have extra 4bytes.
> Let's use it.
> expected effects:
>  - use better codes.
>  - ticket lock on x86-64
>  - para-vitualization aware lock
> etc..
> 
> Chagelog: 20090729
>  - fixed page_cgroup_is_locked().
> 
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
> --

The additional space usage is a big concern, I think saving space
would be of highest priority. I understand the expected benefits, but
a spinlock_t per page_cgroup is quite expensive at the moment. If
anything I think it should be a config option under CONFIG_DEBUG or
something else to play with and see the side effects.

-- 
	Three Cheers,
	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>