Re: [PATCH -mm 5/5] memcg: use spinlock in page_cgroup instead ofbit_spinlock

[Balbir Singh]

* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-08-02 19:20:06]:

> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> This patch replaces bit_spinlock with spinlock. In general,
> spinlock has good functinality than bit_spin_lock and we should use
> it if we have a room for it. In 64bit arch, we have extra 4bytes.
> Let's use it.
> expected effects:
>  - use better codes.
>  - ticket lock on x86-64
>  - para-vitualization aware lock
> etc..
> 
> Chagelog: 20090729
>  - fixed page_cgroup_is_locked().
> 
> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> --

The additional space usage is a big concern, I think saving space
would be of highest priority. I understand the expected benefits, but
a spinlock_t per page_cgroup is quite expensive at the moment. If
anything I think it should be a config option under CONFIG_DEBUG or
something else to play with and see the side effects.

-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/