On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:20:53 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >> + * so, is the container over it's limit. Returns 1 if the container is 
> >> above
> >> + * its limit.
> >> + */
> >> +int memctlr_mm_overlimit(struct mm_struct *mm, void *sc_cont)
> >> +{
> >> +  struct container *cont;
> >> +  struct memctlr *mem;
> >> +  long usage, limit;
> >> +  int ret = 1;
> >> +
> >> +  if (!sc_cont)
> >> +          goto out;
> >> +
> >> +  read_lock(&mm->container_lock);
> >> +  cont = mm->container;
> >> +
> >> +  /*
> >> +   * Regular reclaim, let it proceed as usual
> >> +   */
> >> +  if (!sc_cont)
> >> +          goto out;
> >> +
> >> +  ret = 0;
> >> +  if (cont != sc_cont)
> >> +          goto out;
> >> +
> >> +  mem = memctlr_from_cont(cont);
> >> +  usage = atomic_long_read(&mem->counter.usage);
> >> +  limit = atomic_long_read(&mem->counter.limit);
> >> +  if (limit && (usage > limit))
> >> +          ret = 1;
> >> +out:
> >> +  read_unlock(&mm->container_lock);
> >> +  return ret;
> >> +}
> > 
> > hm, I wonder how much additional lock traffic all this adds.
> > 
> 
> It's a read_lock() and most of the locks are read_locks
> which allow for concurrent access, until the container
> changes or goes away

read_lock isn't free, and I suspect we're calling this function pretty
often (every pagefault?) It'll be measurable on some workloads, on some
hardware.

It probably won't be terribly bad because each lock-taking is associated
with a clear_page().  But still, if there's any possibility of lightening
the locking up, now is the time to think about it.

> >> @@ -66,6 +67,9 @@ struct scan_control {
> >>    int swappiness;
> >>  
> >>    int all_unreclaimable;
> >> +
> >> +  void *container;                /* Used by containers for reclaiming */
> >> +                                  /* pages when the limit is exceeded  */
> >>  };
> > 
> > eww.  Why void*?
> > 
> 
> I did not want to expose struct container in mm/vmscan.c.

It's already there, via rmap.h

> An additional
> thought was that no matter what container goes in the field would be
> useful for reclaim.

Am having trouble parsing that sentence ;)


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

Reply via email to