From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758141AbZDQICA (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:02:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752662AbZDQIBv (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:01:51 -0400 Received: from fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.37]:42994 "EHLO fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751400AbZDQIBu (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:01:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:00:16 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Ryo Tsuruta Cc: yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp, righi.andrea@gmail.com, menage@google.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, agk@sourceware.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, axboe@kernel.dk, baramsori72@gmail.com, chlunde@ping.uio.no, dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dpshah@google.com, eric.rannaud@gmail.com, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, taka@valinux.co.jp, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, matt@bluehost.com, dradford@bluehost.com, ngupta@google.com, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, roberto@unbit.it, s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller Message-Id: <20090417170016.5c7268f1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090417.162201.183038478.ryov@valinux.co.jp> References: <1239740480-28125-4-git-send-email-righi.andrea@gmail.com> <49E7E037.9080004@oss.ntt.co.jp> <20090417112433.085ed604.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090417.162201.183038478.ryov@valinux.co.jp> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:22:01 +0900 (JST) Ryo Tsuruta wrote: > In the case where the bio-cgroup data is allocated dynamically, > - Sometimes quite a large amount of memory get marked dirty. > In this case it requires more kernel memory than that of the > current implementation. > - The operation is expansive due to memory allocations and exclusive > controls by such as spinlocks. > > In the case where the bio-cgroup data is allocated by delayed allocation, > - It makes the operation complicated and expensive, because > sometimes a bio has to be created in the context of other > processes, such as aio and swap-out operation. > > I'd prefer a simple and lightweight implementation. bio-cgroup only > needs 4bytes unlike memory controller. The reason why bio-cgroup chose > this approach is to minimize the overhead. > My point is, plz do your best to reduce memory usage here. You increase size of page_cgroup just because you cannot increase size of struct page. It's not be sane reason to increase size of this object. It's a cheat in my point of view. Thanks, -Kame