On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:46:08 +0200
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Daisuke Nishimura
> <d-nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:06:52 +0200
> > "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Daisuke Nishimura
> >> <d-nishimura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > And IIUC, it's the same for your threshold feature, right ?
> >> > I think it would be better:
> >> >
> >> > - discard this change.
> >> > - in 4/4, rename mem_cgroup_soft_limit_check to mem_cgroup_event_check,
> >> > and instead of adding a new STAT counter, do like:
> >> >
> >> > if (mem_cgroup_event_check(mem)) {
> >> > mem_cgroup_update_tree(mem, page);
> >> > mem_cgroup_threshold(mem);
> >> > }
> >>
> >> I think that mem_cgroup_update_tree() and mem_cgroup_threshold() should be
> >> run with different frequency. How to share MEM_CGROUP_STAT_EVENTS
> >> between soft limits and thresholds in this case?
> >>
> > hmm, both softlimit and your threshold count events at the same place(charge and uncharge).
> > So, I think those events can be shared.
> > Is there any reason they should run in different frequency ?
>
> SOFTLIMIT_EVENTS_THRESH is 1000. If use the same value for thresholds,
> a threshold can
> be exceed on 1000*nr_cpu_id pages. It's too many. I think, that 100 is
> a reasonable value.
>
Hmm, then what amount of costs does this code add ?
Do you have benchmark result ?
Thanks,
-Kame
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
