Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:20:12 +0530 > Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>A meaningful container size does not hamper performance. I am in the process >>of getting more results (with varying container sizes). Please let me know >>what you think of the results? Would you like to see different benchmarks/ >>tests/configuration results? >> >>Any feedback, suggestions to move this work forward towards identifying >>and correcting bottlenecks or to help improve it is highly appreciated. > > > <wakes up> > > Memory reclaim tends not to consume much CPU. Because in steady state it > tends to be the case that the memory reclaim rate (and hopefully the > scanning rate) is equal to the disk IO rate.
> Often the most successful way to identify performance problems in there is > by careful code inspection followed by development of exploits. > > Is this RSS controller built on Paul's stuff, or is it standalone? it is based on Paul's patches. > Where do we stand on all of this now anyway? I was thinking of getting Paul's > changes into -mm soon, see what sort of calamities that brings about. I think we can merge Paul's patches with *interfaces* and then switch to developing/reviewing/commiting resource subsytems. RSS control had good feedback so far from a number of people and is a first candidate imho. Thanks, Kirill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
