Re: [PATCH -mm 5/5] memcg: use spinlock in page_cgroup instead ofbit_spinlock
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Date: Tue Aug 03 2010 - 00:31:01 EST
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:36:45 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * 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.
Hmm. As I already wrote, packing id to flags is not easy.
leave 4 bytes space _pad for a while and drop this patch ?
I don't like to add CONFIG_DEBUG in this core.
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/