Re: [PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches (v3)

[Balbir Singh]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-03-02 15:21:28]:

> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:35:19 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-03-02 14:32:50]:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:10:43 +0530
> > > Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-03-02 09:24:04]:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:59:59 +0530
> > > > > Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > At first, it's said "When cgroup people adds something, the kernel gets slow".
> > > > > This is my start point of reviewing. Below is comments to this version of patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  1. I think it's bad to add more hooks to res_counter. It's enough slow to give up
> > > > >     adding more fancy things..
> > > > 
> > > > res_counters was desgined to be extensible, why is adding anything to
> > > > it going to make it slow, unless we turn on soft_limits?
> > > > 
> > > You inserted new "if" logic in the core loop.
> > > (What I want to say here is not that this is definitely bad but that "isn't there
> > >  any alternatives which is less overhead.)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >  2. please avoid to add hooks to hot-path. In your patch, especially a hook to
> > > > >     mem_cgroup_uncharge_common() is annoying me.
> > > > 
> > > > If soft limits are not enabled, the function does a small check and
> > > > leaves. 
> > > > 
> > > &soft_fail_res is passed always even if memory.soft_limit==ULONG_MAX
> > > res_counter_soft_limit_excess() adds one more function call and spinlock, and irq-off.
> > >
> > 
> > OK, I see that overhead.. I'll figure out a way to work around it.
> >  
> > > > > 
> > > > >  3. please avoid to use global spinlock more. 
> > > > >     no lock is best. mutex is better, maybe.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > No lock to update a tree which is update concurrently?
> > > > 
> > > Using tree/sort itself is nonsense, I believe.
> > > 
> > 
> > I tried using prio trees in the past, but they are not easy to update
> > either. I won't mind asking for suggestions for a data structure that
> > can scaled well, allow quick insert/delete and search.
> > 
> Now, because the routine is called by kswapd() not by try_to_free.....
> 
> It's not necessary to be very very fast. That's my point.
>

OK, I get your point, but whay does that make RB-Tree data structure non-sense?
 
-- 
	Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/