(6/5/12 4:16 AM), leonid.moiseichuk@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: penberg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:penberg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext
Pekka Enberg
Sent: 05 June, 2012 11:02
To: Minchan Kim
...
Next concern is that periodic timer of implementation.
I think it would add direct hook in vmscan.c rather than peeking raw
vmstat periodically by timer so we can control more fine-grained way
without unnecessary overhead.
If the hooks are clean and it doesn't hurt the !CONFIG_VMEVENT case, I'm
completely OK with that.
On the previous iteration hooking vm was pointed as very bad idea, so in my version I installed shrinker to handle cases when we have memory pressure.
Using deferred timer with adequate timeout (0.250 ms or larger) fully suitable for userspace and produce adequate overhead
-> by nature such API should not be 100% accurate, anyhow applications cannot handle situation as good as kernel can provide, 0.5MB space accuracy, 100ms is maximum user-space require for 64-1024MB devices.
I believe that's bad idea. In fact, An "adequate" timeout depend on hardware, not application performance tendency. Thus, applications can't know "adequate" value.
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>