> Note: Assume a big system which has many cpus, and user wants to devide
> the system into containers. Current memcg's percpu caching is done
> only when a task in memcg is on the cpu, running. So, it's not so dangerous
> as it looks.
Agree. I actually think it is pretty
> But yes, if we can drop memcg's code, it's good. Then, we can remove some
> amount of codes.
>
>> But the cons:
>>
>> * percpu counters have signed quantities, so this would limit us 4G.
>> We can add a shift and then count pages instead of bytes, but we
>> are still in the 16T area here. Maybe we really need more than that.
>>
>
> ....
> struct percpu_counter {
> raw_spinlock_t lock;
> s64 count;
>
> s64 limtes us 4G ?
>
Yes, I actually explicitly mentioned that. We can go to 16T if we track
pages
instead of bytes (I considered having the res_counter initialization code to
specify a shift, so we could be generic).
But I believe that if we go this route, we'll need to either:
1) Have our own internal implementation of what percpu counters does
2) create u64 acessors that would cast that to u64 in the operations.
Since it
is a 64 bit field anyway it should be doable. But being doable
doesn't mean we
should do it....
3) Have a different percpu_counter structure, something like struct
percpu_positive_counter.
>
>> * some of the additions here may slow down the percpu_counters for
>> users that don't care about our usage. Things about min/max tracking
>> enter in this category.
>>
>
>
> I think it's not very good to increase size of percpu counter. It's already
> very big...Hm. How about
>
> struct percpu_counter_lazy {
> struct percpu_counter pcp;
> extra information
> s64 margin;
> }
> ?
Can work, but we need something that also solves the signedness problem.
Maybe we can use a union for that, and then stuff things in the end of a
different
structure just for the users that want it.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
