On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:39:13 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > The performance overhead is not so huge in both solutions, but the impact on
> > > performance is even more reduced using a complicated solution...
> > > 
> > > Maybe we can go ahead with the simplest implementation for now and start to
> > > think to an alternative implementation of the page_cgroup locking and
> > > charge/uncharge of pages.

FWIW bit spinlocks suck massive.

quoted text
> > 
> > maybe. But in this 2 years, one of our biggest concerns was the performance.
> > So, we do something complex in memcg. But complex-locking is , yes, complex.
> > Hmm..I don't want to bet we can fix locking scheme without something complex.
> > 
> But overall patch set seems good (to me.) And dirty_ratio and dirty_background_ratio
> will give us much benefit (of performance) than we lose by small overheads.

Well, the !cgroup or root case should really have no performance impact.

quoted text
> IIUC, this series affects trgger for background-write-out.

Not sure though, while this does the accounting the actual writeout is
still !cgroup aware and can definately impact performance negatively by
shrinking too much.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/