Re: [PATCH 0/5] Some vmevent fixes...

From: KOSAKI Motohiro
Date: Thu Jun 07 2012 - 23:35:18 EST


(6/5/12 4:16 AM), leonid.moiseichuk@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: penberg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:penberg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext
Pekka Enberg
Sent: 05 June, 2012 11:02
To: Minchan Kim
...
Next concern is that periodic timer of implementation.
I think it would add direct hook in vmscan.c rather than peeking raw
vmstat periodically by timer so we can control more fine-grained way
without unnecessary overhead.

If the hooks are clean and it doesn't hurt the !CONFIG_VMEVENT case, I'm
completely OK with that.

On the previous iteration hooking vm was pointed as very bad idea, so in my version I installed shrinker to handle cases when we have memory pressure.
Using deferred timer with adequate timeout (0.250 ms or larger) fully suitable for userspace and produce adequate overhead
-> by nature such API should not be 100% accurate, anyhow applications cannot handle situation as good as kernel can provide, 0.5MB space accuracy, 100ms is maximum user-space require for 64-1024MB devices.

I believe that's bad idea. In fact, An "adequate" timeout depend on hardware, not application performance tendency. Thus, applications can't know "adequate" value.

--
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/