On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 05:04:40PM +0800, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 15-05-20 16:11:09, Feng Tang wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:23:07PM +0800, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 08-05-20 15:25:16, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > > percpu_counter_sum_positive() will provide more accurate info.
> > >
On Fri 15-05-20 16:11:09, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:23:07PM +0800, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 08-05-20 15:25:16, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > percpu_counter_sum_positive() will provide more accurate info.
> >
> > Why do we need that?
>
> This is a preparation for patch 3/3, whic
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 03:23:07PM +0800, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 08-05-20 15:25:16, Feng Tang wrote:
> > percpu_counter_sum_positive() will provide more accurate info.
>
> Why do we need that?
This is a preparation for patch 3/3, which will enlarge the batch size
of percpu-counter 'vm_commi
On Fri 08-05-20 15:25:16, Feng Tang wrote:
> percpu_counter_sum_positive() will provide more accurate info.
Why do we need that?
> Its time cost is about 800 nanoseconds on a 2C/4T platform and
> 2~3 microseconds on a 2S/36C/72T server in normal case, and in
> worst case where vm_committed_as's s
percpu_counter_sum_positive() will provide more accurate info.
Its time cost is about 800 nanoseconds on a 2C/4T platform and
2~3 microseconds on a 2S/36C/72T server in normal case, and in
worst case where vm_committed_as's spinlock is under severe
contention, it costs 30~40 microseconds for the 2
5 matches
Mail list logo