On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:49:08 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:31:23 +0900 > Daisuke Nishimura <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:26:24 +0530, Balbir Singh > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * [email protected] <[email protected]> [2010-03-10 > > > 10:43:09]: > > > I made a patch(attached) using both local_irq_disable/enable and > > local_irq_save/restore. > > local_irq_save/restore is used only in mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped. > > > > And I attached a histogram graph of 30 times kernel build in root cgroup > > for each. > > > > before_root: no irq operation(original) > > after_root: local_irq_disable/enable for all > > after2_root: local_irq_save/restore for all > > after3_root: mixed version(attached) > > > > hmm, there seems to be a tendency that before < after < after3 < after2 ? > > Should I replace save/restore version to mixed version ? > > > > IMHO, starting from after2_root version is the easist. > If there is a chance to call lock/unlock page_cgroup can be called in > interrupt context, we _have to_ disable IRQ, anyway. > And if we have to do this, I prefer migration_lock rather than this mixture. > I see.
> BTW, how big your system is ? Balbir-san's concern is for bigger machines. > But I'm not sure this change is affecte by the size of machines. > I'm sorry I have no big machine, now. > My test machine have 8CPUs, and I run all the test with "make -j8". Sorry, I don't have easy access to huge machine either. > I'll consider yet another fix for race in account migration if I can. > me too. Thanks, Daisuke Nishimura. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
