From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D396B002D for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:51:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:51:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20111118.145107.1788849543768712319.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] per-cgroup tcp memory pressure From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <4EC6B457.4010502@parallels.com> References: <1321381632.3021.57.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <20111117.163501.1963137869848419475.davem@davemloft.net> <4EC6B457.4010502@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: glommer@parallels.com Cc: jbottomley@parallels.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, paul@paulmenage.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, devel@openvz.org, kirill@shutemov.name, gthelen@google.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com From: Glauber Costa Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:39:03 -0200 > On 11/17/2011 07:35 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: James Bottomley >> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:27:12 +0000 >> >>> Ping on this, please. We're blocked on this patch set until we can >>> get >>> an ack that the approach is acceptable to network people. >> >> __sk_mem_schedule is now more expensive, because instead of >> short-circuiting >> the majority of the function's logic when "allocated<= >> prot->sysctl_mem[0]" >> and immediately returning 1, the whole rest of the function is run. > > Not the whole rest of the function. Rather, just the other two > tests. But that's the behavior we need since if your parent is on > pressure, you should be as well. How do you feel if we'd also provide > two versions for this: > 1) non-cgroup, try to return 1 as fast as we can > 2) cgroup, also check your parents. Fair enough. > How about we make the jump_label only used for sockets (which is basic > what we have now, just need a clear name to indicate that), and then > enable it not when the first non-root cgroup is created, but when the > first one sets the limit to something different than unlimited? > > Of course to that point, we'd be accounting only to the root > structures, > but I guess this is not a big deal. This sounds good for now. >> TCP specific stuff in mm/memcontrol.c, at best that's not nice at all. > > How crucial is that? It's a big deal. We've been working for years to yank protocol specific things even out of net/core/*.c, it simply doesn't belong there. I'd even be happier if you had to create a net/ipv4/tcp_memcg.c and include/net/tcp_memcg.h > Thing is that as far as I am concerned, all the > memcg people ... What the memcg people want is entirely their problem, especially if it involves crapping up non-networking files with protocol specific junk. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org