From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB9E6B0087 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d23relay02.au.ibm.com (d23relay02.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.244]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2P42eis005220 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:02:40 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay02.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n2P43PqF856114 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:03:25 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n2P4379V013308 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:03:07 +1100 Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:32:46 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Memory controller soft limit patches (v7) Message-ID: <20090325040246.GD24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090319165713.27274.94129.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20090324173414.GB24227@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090325085505.35d14b38.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090325124202.3607d373.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090325124202.3607d373.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, YAMAMOTO Takashi , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, KOSAKI Motohiro , Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton List-ID: * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2009-03-25 12:42:02]: > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:55:05 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:04:14 +0530 > > Balbir Singh 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: email@kvack.org