From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756105AbYF3Eks (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:40:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751373AbYF3Eki (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:40:38 -0400 Received: from e28smtp07.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.7]:46886 "EHLO e28esmtp07.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751344AbYF3Ekh (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:40:37 -0400 Message-ID: <486863C6.6090304@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:10:38 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki CC: Andrew Morton , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3) References: <20080627151808.31664.36047.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20080628133615.a5fa16cf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4867174B.3090005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630102054.ee214765.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <486855DF.2070100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630125737.4b14785f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48685A72.3090102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630131920.68d2cc23.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080630131920.68d2cc23.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:30:50 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >>> Hmm, that is the case where "share" works well. Why soft-limit ? >>> i/o conroller doesn't support share ? (I don' know sorry.) >>> >> Share is a proportional allocation of a resource. Typically that resource is >> soft-limits, but not necessarily. If we re-use resource counters, my expectation >> is that >> >> A share implementation would under-neath use soft-limits. >> > Hmm...I don't convice at this point. (because it's future problem) > At least, please find lock-less approach to check soft-limit. I've been looking at improving res_counter scalability. One simple approach is to convert the spin lock to rw spinlock so that reading data can happen in parallel. The next step would be to explore RCU for resource counters. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d28relay02.in.ibm.com (d28relay02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.59]) by e28esmtp02.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m5U4eWjd004213 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:10:32 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay02.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m5U4dLd3815348 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:09:21 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m5U4eVSq009432 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:10:32 +0530 Message-ID: <486863C6.6090304@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:10:38 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] Memory controller soft limit introduction (v3) References: <20080627151808.31664.36047.sendpatchset@balbir-laptop> <20080628133615.a5fa16cf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4867174B.3090005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630102054.ee214765.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <486855DF.2070100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630125737.4b14785f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48685A72.3090102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080630131920.68d2cc23.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080630131920.68d2cc23.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: Andrew Morton , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:30:50 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >>> Hmm, that is the case where "share" works well. Why soft-limit ? >>> i/o conroller doesn't support share ? (I don' know sorry.) >>> >> Share is a proportional allocation of a resource. Typically that resource is >> soft-limits, but not necessarily. If we re-use resource counters, my expectation >> is that >> >> A share implementation would under-neath use soft-limits. >> > Hmm...I don't convice at this point. (because it's future problem) > At least, please find lock-less approach to check soft-limit. I've been looking at improving res_counter scalability. One simple approach is to convert the spin lock to rw spinlock so that reading data can happen in parallel. The next step would be to explore RCU for resource counters. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- 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