From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 36D676B003D for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:46:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so478360fgb.8 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:46:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091212233409.60da66fb.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> References: <747ea0ec22b9348208c80f86f7a813728bf8e50a.1260571675.git.kirill@shutemov.name> <20091212125046.14df3134.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> <20091212233409.60da66fb.d-nishimura@mtf.biglobe.ne.jp> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:46:08 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 3/4] memcg: rework usage of stats by soft limit From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp Cc: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Menage , Li Zefan , Andrew Morton , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Balbir Singh , Pavel Emelyanov , Dan Malek , Vladislav Buzov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:06:52 +0200 > "Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Daisuke Nishimura >> wrote: >> > And IIUC, it's the same for your threshold feature, right ? >> > I think it would be better: >> > >> > - discard this change. >> > - in 4/4, rename mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check to mem_cgroup_event_check= , >> > =C2=A0and instead of adding a new STAT counter, do like: >> > >> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0if (mem_cgroup_event_check(mem)) { >> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mem_cgroup_upda= te_tree(mem, page); >> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0mem_cgroup_thre= shold(mem); >> > =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0} >> >> I think that mem_cgroup_update_tree() and mem_cgroup_threshold() should = be >> run with different frequency. How to share MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS >> between soft limits and thresholds in this case? >> > hmm, both softlimit and your threshold count events at the same place(cha= rge and uncharge). > So, I think those events can be shared. > Is there any reason they should run in different frequency ? SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_THRESH is 1000. If use the same value for thresholds, a threshold can be exceed on 1000*nr_cpu_id pages. It's too many. I think, that 100 is a reasonable value. mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check() resets MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS when it reaches SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_THRESH. If I will do the same thing for THRESHOLDS_EVENTS_THRESH (which is 100) , mem_cgroup_event_check() will never be 'true'. Any idea how to share MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS in this case? -- 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