On 08/10/2012 09:27 PM, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
quoted
+bool __memcg_kmem_new_page(gfp_t gfp, void *_handle, int order)
quoted
+{
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
+ struct mem_cgroup **handle = (struct mem_cgroup **)_handle;
+ bool ret = true;
+ size_t size;
+ struct task_struct *p;
+
+ *handle = NULL;
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ p = rcu_dereference(current->mm->owner);
+ memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(p);
+ if (!memcg_kmem_enabled(memcg))
+ goto out;
+
+ mem_cgroup_get(memcg);
+
This mem_cgroup_get() will be a potentioal performance problem.
Don't you have good idea to avoid accessing atomic counter here ?
I think some kind of percpu counter or a feature to disable "move task"
will be a help.
I have just sent out a proposal to deal with this. I tried the trick of
marking only the first charge and last uncharge, and it works quite
alright at the cost of a bit test on most calls to memcg_kmem_charge.
Please let me know what you think.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>