From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] mm: memcg: statistics implementation cleanups Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:19:33 +0900 Message-ID: <4FB1A115.2080303@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <1337018451-27359-1-git-send-email-hannes@cmpxchg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1337018451-27359-1-git-send-email-hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org (2012/05/15 3:00), Johannes Weiner wrote: > Before piling more things (reclaim stats) on top of the current mess, > I thought it'd be better to clean up a bit. > > The biggest change is printing statistics directly from live counters, > it has always been annoying to declare a new counter in two separate > enums and corresponding name string arrays. After this series we are > down to one of each. > > mm/memcontrol.c | 223 +++++++++++++++++------------------------------ > 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 141 deletions(-) > to all 1-6. Thank you. Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki One excuse for my old implementation of mem_cgroup_get_total_stat(), which is fixed in patch 6, is that I thought it's better to touch all counters in a cachineline at once and avoiding long distance for-each loop. What number of performance difference with some big hierarchy(100+children) tree ? (But I agree your code is cleaner. I'm just curious.) Thanks, -Kame