Hi On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:20 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Care to work on your mem_notify patch again and bring it up to date? >> That would be a good place to start working from, right? > > Unfortunately No ;) > > I should rewrite memory notification patchset from scratch. > the new version will construct on memcg infrastrcture. > > Why? > > last year, I received many feedback from lkml folks and my article reader. > (I monthly write kernel patch introduction article to japanese web > magazine and receive some feedback periodically) > > I learned many people want flexibility notification. > (per workload, per user, et al) > eg. nokia lowmem driver have exception process defined by uid. > > at top of last year, I thought memcg don't provide good infrastructure. > the first version memcg is just pretty funny joke. if its config turn on, > memory workload performance decrease ~30% although the user don't use > memcg at runtime. then nobody use it. > but recently, KAMEZAWA hiroyuki (and Li zefan, Daisuke Nishimura et al) > dramatically improvement memcg performance. > now, memcg overhead become less than 1%. > > Then, I think any memory accounting activity should use this infrastructure. > That's my homework. Any updates on top of mem_notify v6 patches? Is there any WIP for mem_notify with memcg infrastructure as you have pointed out above? -- ---Trilok Soni http://triloksoni.wordpress.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/triloksoni -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
