On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:02 -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 11/07/2011 01:26 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is my new attempt at implementing per-cgroup tcp memory pressure.
> > I am particularly interested in what the network folks have to comment on
> > it: my main goal is to achieve the least impact possible in the network code.
> >
> > Here's a brief description of my approach:
> >
> > When only the root cgroup is present, the code should behave the same way as
> > before - with the exception of the inclusion of an extra field in struct sock,
> > and one in struct proto. All tests are patched out with static branch, and we
> > still access addresses directly - the same as we did before.
> >
> > When a cgroup other than root is created, we patch in the branches, and account
> > resources for that cgroup. The variables in the root cgroup are still updated.
> > If we were to try to be 100 % coherent with the memcg code, that should depend
> > on use_hierarchy. However, I feel that this is a good compromise in terms of
> > leaving the network code untouched, and still having a global vision of its
> > resources. I also do not compute max_usage for the root cgroup, for a similar
> > reason.
> >
> > Please let me know what you think of it.
>
> Dave, Eric,
>
> Can you let me know what you think of the general approach I've followed
> in this series? The impact on the common case should be minimal, or at
> least as expensive as a static branch (0 in most arches, I believe).
>
> I am mostly interested in knowing if this a valid pursue path. I'll be
> happy to address any specific concerns you have once you're ok with the
> general approach.
Ping on this, please. We're blocked on this patch set until we can get
an ack that the approach is acceptable to network people.
Thanks,
James
��.n������g��� �a��� �&ޖ)���)��h���&������梷���� �Ǟ�m������)�����b�n���y��{^�w�r���&�i��('����춊m�鞵��â����چ�����i�������$����