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

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:36:45 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * 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.
> 

Hmm. As I already wrote, packing id to flags is not easy. 
leave 4 bytes space _pad for a while and drop this patch ?

I don't like to add CONFIG_DEBUG in this core.

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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>