Re: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:22:01 +0900 (JST)
Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/