2011/6/2 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:06:51PM +0900, Hiroyuki Kamezawa wrote: >> 2011/6/2 Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:52:47AM +0900, Hiroyuki Kamezawa wrote: >> >> Hmm, how about splitting patch 2/8 into small patches and see what happens in >> >> 3.2 or 3.3 ? While that, we can make softlimit works better. >> >> (and once we do 2/8, our direction will be fixed to the direction to >> >> remove global LRU.) >> > >> > Do you have specific parts in mind that could go stand-alone? >> > >> > One thing I can think of is splitting up those parts: >> > >> > 1. move /target/ reclaim to generic code >> > >> > 2. convert /global/ reclaim from global lru to hierarchy reclaim >> > including root_mem_cgroup >> >> Hmm, at brief look >> patch 2/8 >> - hierarchy walk rewrite code should be stand alone and can be merged >> 1st, as clean-up > > You mean introducing mem_cgroup_hierarchy_walk() and make use of it in > mem_cgroup_hierarchical_reclaim() as a first step? > yes. I like to cut out a patch from a series and forward it to mainline, and make the series smaller. in some way... >> - root cgroup LRU handling was required for performance. I think we >> removed tons of >> atomic ops and can remove that special handling personally. But this change of >> root cgroup handling should be in separate patch. with performance report. > > I disagree. > > With view on the whole patch series, linking ungrouped process pages > to the root_mem_cgroup is traded against > > 1. linking ungrouped process pages to the global LRU > > 2. linking grouped process pages to both the global LRU and the > memcg LRU > > The comparison you propose is neither fair nor relevant because it > would never make sense to merge that patch without the others. If you show there is no performance regression when - memory cgroup is configured. - it's not disabled by boot option - there are only ROOT cgroup. (Then, I'd like to see score.) It seems your current series is a mixture of 2 works as "re-desgin of softlimit" and "removal of global LRU". I don't understand why you need 2 works at once. Above test is for the latter. You need another justification for the former. So, I'd like to ask you to divide the series into 2 series. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href