Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
* maximilian attems m...@debian.org [2011-05-12 11:53:25]: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? so unless this information comes along soon, I'll revert my change. I sent some information earlier, I hope it was useful. BTW, I don't see memory cgroups enabled in debian experimental (changelog), should I be looking elsewhere? -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 17:35 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * maximilian attems m...@debian.org [2011-05-12 11:53:25]: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? so unless this information comes along soon, I'll revert my change. I sent some information earlier, I hope it was useful. BTW, I don't see memory cgroups enabled in debian experimental (changelog), should I be looking elsewhere? They're enabled in 2.6.39-1 (in sid). However, I actually meant them to be disabled by default, and that will be done in 2.6.39-2. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2011-05-23 00:10:13]: On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 17:35 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * maximilian attems m...@debian.org [2011-05-12 11:53:25]: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? so unless this information comes along soon, I'll revert my change. I sent some information earlier, I hope it was useful. BTW, I don't see memory cgroups enabled in debian experimental (changelog), should I be looking elsewhere? They're enabled in 2.6.39-1 (in sid). However, I actually meant them to be disabled by default, and that will be done in 2.6.39-2. Oops, but why do you want to disable them by default? Other distros have them enabled, disabled implies more boot options required, lesser testing of the feature and feedback. Is there a strong reason to change it? -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 12:43 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2011-05-23 00:10:13]: On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 17:35 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * maximilian attems m...@debian.org [2011-05-12 11:53:25]: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? so unless this information comes along soon, I'll revert my change. I sent some information earlier, I hope it was useful. BTW, I don't see memory cgroups enabled in debian experimental (changelog), should I be looking elsewhere? They're enabled in 2.6.39-1 (in sid). However, I actually meant them to be disabled by default, and that will be done in 2.6.39-2. Oops, but why do you want to disable them by default? Other distros have them enabled, disabled implies more boot options required, lesser testing of the feature and feedback. Is there a strong reason to change it? Yes, because it currently (2.6.39) requires extra page tables that take time and memory. I understand this is supposed to change soon, and we can reconsider then. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2011-05-23 08:10:21]: On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 12:43 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2011-05-23 00:10:13]: On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 17:35 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * maximilian attems m...@debian.org [2011-05-12 11:53:25]: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? so unless this information comes along soon, I'll revert my change. I sent some information earlier, I hope it was useful. BTW, I don't see memory cgroups enabled in debian experimental (changelog), should I be looking elsewhere? They're enabled in 2.6.39-1 (in sid). However, I actually meant them to be disabled by default, and that will be done in 2.6.39-2. Oops, but why do you want to disable them by default? Other distros have them enabled, disabled implies more boot options required, lesser testing of the feature and feedback. Is there a strong reason to change it? Yes, because it currently (2.6.39) requires extra page tables that take time and memory. I understand this is supposed to change soon, and we can reconsider then. Sorry, I don't understand the extra page tables remark, that changed way back in 2.6.30/1 timeframe. Could you please elaborate, so that I can clarify the correct concern. -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 21:03 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2011-05-23 08:10:21]: On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 12:43 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2011-05-23 00:10:13]: On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 17:35 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * maximilian attems m...@debian.org [2011-05-12 11:53:25]: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? so unless this information comes along soon, I'll revert my change. I sent some information earlier, I hope it was useful. BTW, I don't see memory cgroups enabled in debian experimental (changelog), should I be looking elsewhere? They're enabled in 2.6.39-1 (in sid). However, I actually meant them to be disabled by default, and that will be done in 2.6.39-2. Oops, but why do you want to disable them by default? Other distros have them enabled, disabled implies more boot options required, lesser testing of the feature and feedback. Is there a strong reason to change it? Yes, because it currently (2.6.39) requires extra page tables that take time and memory. I understand this is supposed to change soon, and we can reconsider then. Sorry, I don't understand the extra page tables remark, that changed way back in 2.6.30/1 timeframe. There's an array of page_cgroup structures, mirroring the page structures. Could you please elaborate, so that I can clarify the correct concern. http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/443241/75143317a94d9752/ Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2011-05-23 08:51:00]: On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 21:03 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2011-05-23 08:10:21]: On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 12:43 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk [2011-05-23 00:10:13]: On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 17:35 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: * maximilian attems m...@debian.org [2011-05-12 11:53:25]: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? so unless this information comes along soon, I'll revert my change. I sent some information earlier, I hope it was useful. BTW, I don't see memory cgroups enabled in debian experimental (changelog), should I be looking elsewhere? They're enabled in 2.6.39-1 (in sid). However, I actually meant them to be disabled by default, and that will be done in 2.6.39-2. Oops, but why do you want to disable them by default? Other distros have them enabled, disabled implies more boot options required, lesser testing of the feature and feedback. Is there a strong reason to change it? Yes, because it currently (2.6.39) requires extra page tables that take time and memory. I understand this is supposed to change soon, and we can reconsider then. Sorry, I don't understand the extra page tables remark, that changed way back in 2.6.30/1 timeframe. There's an array of page_cgroup structures, mirroring the page structures. Could you please elaborate, so that I can clarify the correct concern. http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/443241/75143317a94d9752/ Yes, but that is not page tables, that is struct page mirroring. That uses less than 1% (about 0.7%) of the total memory, is that too bad? -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
* maximilian attems m...@debian.org [2011-05-12 11:53:25]: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? so unless this information comes along soon, I'll revert my change. There are just so many of them, I am not sure where to start. Let me try From http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=history;f=mm/memcontrol.c;h=010f9166fa6ea099b7ab7b5ccdefe7af8cf033f4;hb=HEAD http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=483c30b514bd3037fa3f19fa42327c94c10f51c8 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=854ffa8d104e44111fec96764c0e0cb29223d54c http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=cdec2e4265dfa09490601b00aeabd8a8d4af30f0 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=569b846df54ffb2827b83ce3244c5f032394cba4 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=0c3e73e84fe3f64cf1c2e8bb4e91e8901cbcdc38 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=7ffd4ca7a2cdd7a18f0b499a4e9e0e7cf36ba018 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=5564e88ba6fd2f6dcd83a592771810cd84b5ae80 http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=3403968d7a7dc373901cad0cad56b3afcb09cc50 -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? so unless this information comes along soon, I'll revert my change. cheers -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 11:53 +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? so unless this information comes along soon, I'll revert my change. I prepared a patch to make memory cgroups built-in but disabled by default (message #31). The overhead then should be very small, but I still haven't spent the time to measure it. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
Hi, Has anybody looked at this yet? Balbir On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Balbir Singh bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. Balbir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: Hi, Has anybody looked at this yet? Balbir On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Balbir Singh bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. Balbir thanks for the notice, I'll just enable it for 2.6.39. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +, maximilian attems wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. could you point to the relevant commits? thanks for the notice, I'll just enable it for 2.6.39. did that for now, but aboves notice would be cool. thanks -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#534964: Any updates on this BUG?
Hi, Ben, We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead of memory cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable it. If there are some concerns, we could always address them. There are more interesting changes on the way as well. Balbir -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
