On 30.11.2017 03:27, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> On 29.09.2017 00:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:48:55 +0300 Kirill Tkhai
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> This patch aims to make
On 30.11.2017 03:27, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> On 29.09.2017 00:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:48:55 +0300 Kirill Tkhai
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> This patch aims to make super_cache_count() (and other functions,
>> which
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 29.09.2017 00:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:48:55 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>
> This patch aims to make super_cache_count() (and other functions,
> which count LRU
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 29.09.2017 00:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:48:55 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>
> This patch aims to make super_cache_count() (and other functions,
> which count LRU nr_items) more effective.
> It allows
On 29.09.2017 00:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:48:55 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
This patch aims to make super_cache_count() (and other functions,
which count LRU nr_items) more effective.
It allows list_lru_node::memcg_lrus to be
On 29.09.2017 00:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:48:55 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
This patch aims to make super_cache_count() (and other functions,
which count LRU nr_items) more effective.
It allows list_lru_node::memcg_lrus to be RCU-accessed, and makes
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:48:55 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> This patch aims to make super_cache_count() (and other functions,
> >> which count LRU nr_items) more effective.
> >> It allows list_lru_node::memcg_lrus to be RCU-accessed, and makes
> >> __list_lru_count_one()
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:48:55 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >> This patch aims to make super_cache_count() (and other functions,
> >> which count LRU nr_items) more effective.
> >> It allows list_lru_node::memcg_lrus to be RCU-accessed, and makes
> >> __list_lru_count_one() count nr_items lockless
On 28.09.2017 00:15, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:06:33 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
>> During the reclaiming slab of a memcg, shrink_slab iterates
>> over all registered shrinkers in the system, and tries to count
>> and consume objects related to the
On 28.09.2017 00:15, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:06:33 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>
>> During the reclaiming slab of a memcg, shrink_slab iterates
>> over all registered shrinkers in the system, and tries to count
>> and consume objects related to the cgroup. In case of memory
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:06:33 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> During the reclaiming slab of a memcg, shrink_slab iterates
> over all registered shrinkers in the system, and tries to count
> and consume objects related to the cgroup. In case of memory
> pressure, this behaves
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:06:33 +0300 Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> During the reclaiming slab of a memcg, shrink_slab iterates
> over all registered shrinkers in the system, and tries to count
> and consume objects related to the cgroup. In case of memory
> pressure, this behaves bad: I observe high
During the reclaiming slab of a memcg, shrink_slab iterates
over all registered shrinkers in the system, and tries to count
and consume objects related to the cgroup. In case of memory
pressure, this behaves bad: I observe high system time and
time spent in list_lru_count_one() for many processes
During the reclaiming slab of a memcg, shrink_slab iterates
over all registered shrinkers in the system, and tries to count
and consume objects related to the cgroup. In case of memory
pressure, this behaves bad: I observe high system time and
time spent in list_lru_count_one() for many processes
14 matches
Mail list logo