* nishim...@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp <nishim...@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> [2010-03-10
10:43:09]:
> > Please please measure the performance overhead of this change.
> >
>
> here.
>
> > > > > > > I made a patch below and measured the time(average of 10 times)
> > > > > > > of kernel build
> > > > > > > on tmpfs(make -j8 on 8 CPU machine with 2.6.33 defconfig).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <before>
> > > > > > > - root cgroup: 190.47 sec
> > > > > > > - child cgroup: 192.81 sec
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <after>
> > > > > > > - root cgroup: 191.06 sec
> > > > > > > - child cgroup: 193.06 sec
> > > > > > >
>
> <after2(local_irq_save/restore)>
> - root cgroup: 191.42 sec
> - child cgroup: 193.55 sec
>
> hmm, I think it's in error range, but I can see a tendency by testing several
> times
> that it's getting slower as I add additional codes. Using
> local_irq_disable()/enable()
> except in mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped(it can be the only candidate to be
> called
> with irq disabled in future) might be the choice.
>
Error range would depend on things like standard deviation and
repetition. It might be good to keep update_file_mapped and see the
impact. My concern is with large systems, the difference might be
larger.
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openvz.org
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
