On 10/14/2011 12:00 AM, David Miller wrote:
From: Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:09:34 +0400
This series was extensively reviewed over the past month, and after
all major comments were merged, I feel it is ready for inclusion when
the next merge window opens. Minor fixes will be provided if they
prove to be necessary.
I'm not applying this.
Thank you for letting me now about your view of this that early.
You're turning inline increments and decrements of the existing memory
limits into indirect function calls.
Yes, indeed.
That imposes a new non-trivial cost, in fast paths, even when people
do not use your feature.
Well, there is a cost, but all past submissions included round trip
benchmarks.
In none of them I could see any significant slowdown.
Make this evaluate into exactly the same exact code stream we have
now when the memory cgroup feature is not in use, which will be the
majority of users.
What exactly do you mean by "not in use" ? Not compiled in or not
actively being exercised ? If you mean the later, I appreciate tips on
how to achieve it.
Also, I kind of dispute the affirmation that !cgroup will encompass
the majority of users, since cgroups is being enabled by default by
most vendors. All systemd based systems use it extensively, for instance.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>