From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx135.postini.com [74.125.245.135]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 64DEF6B0002 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 08:44:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51598168.4050404@parallels.com> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:45:28 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/28] memcg-aware slab shrinking References: <1364548450-28254-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20130401123843.GC5217@sergelap> In-Reply-To: <20130401123843.GC5217@sergelap> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Serge Hallyn Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, hughd@google.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Dave Shrinnker , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton On 04/01/2013 04:38 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Glauber Costa (glommer@parallels.com): >> Hi, >> >> Notes: >> ====== >> >> This is v2 of memcg-aware LRU shrinking. I've been testing it extensively >> and it behaves well, at least from the isolation point of view. However, >> I feel some more testing is needed before we commit to it. Still, this is >> doing the job fairly well. Comments welcome. > > Do you have any performance tests (preferably with enough runs with and > without this patchset to show 95% confidence interval) to show the > impact this has? Certainly the feature sounds worthwhile, but I'm > curious about the cost of maintaining this extra state. > > -serge > Not yet. I intend to include them in my next run. I haven't yet decided on a set of tests to run (maybe just a memcg-contained kernel compile?) So if you have suggestions of what I could run to show this, feel free to lay them down here. -- 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