* Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> [2011-05-23 08:51:00]:
> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 21:03 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > * Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> [2011-05-23 08:10:21]:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 12:43 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > > * Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> [2011-05-23 00:10:13]:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 17:35 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > > > > * maximilian attems <m...@debian.org> [2011-05-12 11:53:25]:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:08:10PM +0000, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:33:31AM +0000, maximilian attems
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > <bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Ben,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We've made significant progress in reducing the overhead
> > > > > > > > > > > of memory
> > > > > > > > > > > cgroup subsystem. I'd request you to try it and enable
> > > > > > > > > > > it. If there
> > > > > > > > > > > are some concerns, we could always address them. There
> > > > > > > > > > > are more
> > > > > > > > > > > interesting changes on the way as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > could you point to the relevant commits?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so unless this information comes along soon,
> > > > > > > I'll revert my change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I sent some information earlier, I hope it was useful. BTW, I don't
> > > > > > see memory cgroups enabled in debian experimental (changelog),
> > > > > > should I be looking
> > > > > > elsewhere?
> > > > >
> > > > > They're enabled in 2.6.39-1 (in sid). However, I actually meant them
> > > > > to
> > > > > be disabled by default, and that will be done in 2.6.39-2.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oops, but why do you want to disable them by default? Other distros
> > > > have them enabled, disabled implies more boot options required, lesser
> > > > testing of the feature and feedback. Is there a strong reason to
> > > > change it?
> > >
> > > Yes, because it currently (2.6.39) requires extra page tables that take
> > > time and memory. I understand this is supposed to change soon, and we
> > > can reconsider then.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand the extra page tables remark, that changed
> > way back in 2.6.30/1 timeframe.
>
> There's an array of page_cgroup structures, mirroring the page
> structures.
>
> > Could you please elaborate, so that I
> > can clarify the correct concern.
>
> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/443241/75143317a94d9752/
>
Yes, but that is not page tables, that is struct page mirroring. That
uses less than 1% (about 0.7%) of the total memory, is that too bad?
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
