On Wed 26-07-17 14:09:27, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:50:36 +0200 Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > [CC Johannes and Vladimir - the whole series is > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170719014603.19029-1-d...@stgolabs.net] > > > > On Tue 18-07-17 18:46:02, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > Such that we can optimize __mem_cgroup_largest_soft_limit_node(). > > > The only overhead is the extra footprint for the cached pointer, > > > but this should not be an issue for mem_cgroup_tree_per_node. > > > > The soft limit reclaim and the associated tree manipulation is not worth > > touching/optimizing IMHO. We strongly discourage anybody configuring > > soft limit because of the way how it is implemented and disruptive. > > I'm inclined to merge this. Unless we plan to actually remove the code > "soon",
this is not going to happen. It is a user visible interface so we will have to maintain it as long as cgroup v1 interface is available > I think it's best to continue to improve it. Improving > performance may never matter to anyone, but there is benefit in keeping > up to date with the current interfaces and best practices. Well, I am not opposing the change I just think it is not worth bothering. Soft limit reclaim tends to be so expensive (direct limit down to the soft limit) that a tiny otimization has hard times to help. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
