On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:20:35 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi. > > > > @@ -73,6 +76,7 @@ void res_counter_uncharge_locked(struct res_counter *counter, unsigned long val) > > val = counter->usage; > > > > counter->usage -= val; > > + res_counter_threshold_notify_locked(counter); > > } > > > hmm.. this adds new checks to hot-path of process life cycle. > > Do you have any number on performance impact of these patches(w/o setting any threshold)? > IMHO, it might be small enough to be ignored because KAMEZAWA-san's coalesce charge/uncharge > patches have decreased charge/uncharge for res_counter itself, but I want to know just to make sure. > Another concern is to support root cgroup, you need another notifier hook in memcg because root cgroup doesn't use res_counter now. Can't this be implemented in a way like softlimit check ? Filter by the number of event will be good for notifier behavior, for avoiding too much wake up, too. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
