Re: [PATCH -mm v8 4/7] proc: add kpagecgroup file

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:03:18PM -0700, Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote:
> For both /proc/kpage* interfaces you add (and more critically for the
> rmap-causing one, kpageidle):
>
> It's a good idea to do cond_sched(). Whether after each pfn, each Nth
> pfn, each put_user, I leave to you, but a reasonable cadence is
> needed, because user-space can call this on the entire physical
> address space, and that's a lot of work to do without re-scheduling.

I really don't think it's necessary. These files can only be
read/written by the root, who has plenty ways to kill the system anyway.
The program that is allowed to read/write these files must be conscious
and do it in batches of reasonable size. AFAICS the same reasoning
already lays behind /proc/kpagecount and /proc/kpageflag, which also do
not thrust the "right" batch size on their readers.

Beg to disagree. You're conflating intended use with system health. A cond_sched() is a one-liner.

Andres 

Thanks,
Vladimir



--
Andres Lagar-Cavilla | Google Kernel Team | andreslc@xxxxxxxxxx 

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]