lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] introduce task cgroup v2
Paul Menage wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 6:32 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> honestly, I used res_counter on early version.
>> but I got bad performance.
>
> Bad performance on the charge/uncharge?
>
> The only difference I can see is that res_counter uses
> spin_lock_irqsave()/spin_unlock_irqrestore(), and you're using plain
> spin_lock()/spin_unlock().
>
> Is the overhead of a pushf/cli/popf really going to matter compared
> with the overhead of forking/exiting a task?
>
> Or approaching this from the other side, does res_counter really need
> irq-safe locking, or is it just being cautious?

We really need irq-safe locking. We can end up uncharging from reclaim context
(called under zone->lru_lock and mem->zone->lru_lock - held with interrupts
disabled)

I am going to convert the spin lock to a reader writers lock, so that reads from
user space do not cause contention. I'll experiment and look at the overhead.

--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-21 10:59    [W:0.153 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site