Re: [PATCH 3/7] memcg: add memory.scan_stat
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <hidden>
Date: 2011-06-27 01:57:27
Also in:
lkml
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:40:42 -0700 Ying Han [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:20 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:49:54 -0700 Ying Han [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 8:53 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki < kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:quoted
From e08990dd9ada13cf236bec1ef44b207436434b8e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <redacted> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:11:01 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 3/7] memcg: add memory.scan_stat
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
quoted
quoted
quoted
+ +struct scanstat { + A A A spinlock_t A A A lock; + A A A unsigned long A stats[NR_SCANSTATS]; A A /* local statistics */ + A A A unsigned long A totalstats[NR_SCANSTATS]; A /* hierarchical */ +};I wonder why not extending the mem_cgroup_stat_cpu struct, and then we can use the per-cpu counters like others.diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c index b7d2d79..5b8bbe9 100644 --- a/mm/memcontrol.c +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c@@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu { long count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS]; unsigned long events[MEM_CGROUP_EVENTS_NSTATS]; unsigned long targets[MEM_CGROUP_NTARGETS]; + unsigned long reclaim_stats[MEMCG_RECLAIM_NSTATS]; };
Hmm, do we have enough benefit to consume 72 bytes per cpu and make read-side slow for this rarely updated counter ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>