On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 12:19 +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> When I added batching, I didn't touch page-reclaim path because it delays
> res_counter_uncharge() and make more threads run into page reclaim.
> But, from above score, bactching seems required.
>
> And because of current design of
On Fri 20-07-12 17:12:16, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 04:38:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 20-07-12 16:16:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:53:29PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Thu 19-07-12 16:34:26, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > > [...]
>
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 04:38:48PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 20-07-12 16:16:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:53:29PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Thu 19-07-12 16:34:26, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > index
On Fri 20-07-12 16:16:25, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:53:29PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 19-07-12 16:34:26, Tim Chen wrote:
> > [...]
> > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > index 33dc256..aac5672 100644
> > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:53:29PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 19-07-12 16:34:26, Tim Chen wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 33dc256..aac5672 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -779,6 +779,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(st
On Thu 19-07-12 16:34:26, Tim Chen wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 33dc256..aac5672 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -779,6 +779,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head
> *page_list,
>
> cond_resched();
>
> + mem_cg
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 04:34:26PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed in a multi-process parallel files reading benchmark I ran on a
> 8 socket machine, throughput slowed down by a factor of 8 when I ran
> the benchmark within a cgroup container. I traced the problem to the
> following c
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 04:34:26PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed in a multi-process parallel files reading benchmark I ran on a
> 8 socket machine, throughput slowed down by a factor of 8 when I ran
> the benchmark within a cgroup container. I traced the problem to the
> following c
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:19:20PM +0900, Kamezawa Hiroyuki wrote:
> (2012/07/20 8:34), Tim Chen wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I noticed in a multi-process parallel files reading benchmark I ran on a
> >8 socket machine, throughput slowed down by a factor of 8 when I ran
> >the benchmark within a cgroup co
(2012/07/20 8:34), Tim Chen wrote:
Hi,
I noticed in a multi-process parallel files reading benchmark I ran on a
8 socket machine, throughput slowed down by a factor of 8 when I ran
the benchmark within a cgroup container. I traced the problem to the
following code path (see below) when we are
10 matches
Mail list logo