From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.234]) by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m837UAtY013655 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:30:10 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m837VHG83842276 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:31:17 +1000 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m837VHio007361 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:31:17 +1000 Message-ID: <48BE3D43.7090903@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:01:15 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Remove cgroup member from struct page References: <20080831174756.GA25790@balbir.in.ibm.com> <200809011656.45190.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20080901161927.a1fe5afc.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <200809011743.42658.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <48BD0641.4040705@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080902190256.1375f593.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48BD0E4A.5040502@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080902190723.841841f0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48BD119B.8020605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080902195717.224b0822.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48BD337E.40001@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080903123306.316beb9d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080903123306.316beb9d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , hugh@veritas.com, menage@google.com, xemul@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:07:18 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: >> I understand your concern and I am not trying to reduce memcg's performance - or >> add a fancy feature. I am trying to make memcg more friendly for distros. I see >> your point about the overhead. I just got back my results - I see a 4% overhead >> with the patches. Let me see if I can rework them for better performance. >> > Just an idea, by using atomic_ops page_cgroup patch, you can encode page_cgroup->lock > to page_cgroup->flags and use bit_spinlock(), I think. > (my new patch set use bit_spinlock on page_cgroup->flags for avoiding some race.) > > This will save extra 4 bytes. Exactly the next step I was thinking about (since we already use it, in the current form). Thanks for the suggestion! -- 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