From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754146AbZHLD5p (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:57:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753392AbZHLD5o (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:57:44 -0400 Received: from e28smtp02.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.2]:36502 "EHLO e28smtp02.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753058AbZHLD5n (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:57:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:27:40 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: Andrew Morton Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, menage@google.com, prarit@redhat.com, andi.kleen@intel.com, xemul@openvz.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: Help Resource Counters Scale better (v4) Message-ID: <20090812035740.GG7176@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20090811144405.GW7176@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090811163159.ddc5f5fd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090811163159.ddc5f5fd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton [2009-08-11 16:31:59]: > Is this an alternative approach to using percpu_counters, or do we do > both or do we choose one or the other? res_counter_charge() really is > quite sucky. > This is an alternative approach, I'll still do the percpu counter patches, but once the overhead for root is gone, most users not using this functionality will not see any major overhead. -- Balbir