* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-10-12 12:42:53]:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:09:15 +0530
> Balbir Singh <bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-10-08 19:41:31]:
> >
> > > On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:12:01 +0900
> > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sure. It walks the same data three times, potentially causing
> > > > > thrashing in the L1 cache.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, make this 2 times, at least.
> > > >
> > > How about this ?
> > > ==
> > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com>
> > >
> > > Presently, at task migration among cgroups, memory cgroup scans page
> > > tables and
> > > moves accounting if flags are properly set.
> > >
> > >
> > > The core code, mem_cgroup_move_charge_pte_range() does
> > >
> > > pte_offset_map_lock();
> > > for all ptes in a page table:
> > > 1. look into page table, find_and_get a page
> > > 2. remove it from LRU.
> > > 3. move charge.
> > > 4. putback to LRU. put_page()
> > > pte_offset_map_unlock();
> > >
> > > for pte entries on a 3rd level? page table.
> > >
> > > As a planned updates, we'll support dirty-page accounting. Because
> > > move_charge()
> > > is highly race, we need to add more check in move_charge.
> > > For example, lock_page();-> wait_on_page_writeback();-> unlock_page();
> > > is an candidate for new check.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Is this a change to help dirty limits or is it a generic bug fix.
> >
> Not a bug fix. This for adding lock_page() to moge_charge(). It helps us
> to remove "irq disable" in update_stat().
>
Excellent! Thanks
--
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
