(2012/05/15 20:03), Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 09:19:33AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> (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 <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks! > >> 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.) > > I set up a parental group with hierarchy enabled, then created 512 > children and did a 4-job kernel bench in one of them. Every 0.1 > seconds, I read the stats of the parent, which requires reading each > stat/event/lru item from 512 groups before moving to the next one: > > 512stats-vanilla 512stats-patched > Walltime (s) 62.61 ( +0.00%) 62.88 ( +0.43%) > Walltime (stddev) 0.17 ( +0.00%) 0.14 ( -3.17%) > > That should be acceptable, I think. > > Yes, thank you. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
