Re: [PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v7)

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

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-25 12:42:02]:

> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:55:05 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:04:14 +0530
> > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > I've run lmbench with the soft limit patches and the results show no
> > > major overhead, there are some outliers and unexpected results.
> > > 
> > > The outliers are at context-switch 16p/64K, in communicating
> > > latencies and some unexpected results where the softlimit changes help improve
> > > performance (I consider these to be in the range of noise).
> > > 
> > 
> > ok, seems no regressions. but what is the softlimit value ?
> > I think there result is of course souftlimit=0 case value...right ?
> > 
> 

Yes, this result is for the soft limit being default value
(LONGLONG_MAX) case.

> I'll say no more complains to this hooks even while I don't like them.
> But res_coutner_charge() looks like decolated chocolate cake as _counter_ ;)
> 

res_counters are split out for modularity reasons, the advantage is
that we can optimize/change res_counters without affecting the memcg
code. I am glad you can see that there is no overhead as a result of
these hooks.


-- 
	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>