Re: [PATCH] introduce task cgroup v2

[Paul Menage]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 2:10 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I am going to convert spinlock in task limit cgroup to atomic_t.
> task limit cgroup has following caractatics.
>        - many write (fork, exit)
>        - few read
>        - fork() is performance sensitive systemcall.

This is true, but I don't see how it can be more performance-sensitive
than the overhead of allocating/freeing a page.

What kinds of performance regressions did you see?

>          if increase fork overhead, system total performance cause degression.

What kind of overhead were you seeing? How about if you delay doing
any task accounting until the task_limit subsystem is bound to a
hierarchy? That way there's no noticeable overhead for people who
aren't using your subsystem.

Paul
--
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/