Re: [RFC 2/4] memcg: make it suck faster

2012-09-26 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:53:21PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 09/26/2012 01:02 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> nomemcg : memcg compile disabled. > >> > base : memcg enabled, patch not applied. > >> > bypassed : memcg enabled, with patch applied. > >> > > >> > basebypas

Re: [RFC 2/4] memcg: make it suck faster

2012-09-26 Thread Glauber Costa
On 09/26/2012 01:02 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> nomemcg : memcg compile disabled. >> > base : memcg enabled, patch not applied. >> > bypassed : memcg enabled, with patch applied. >> > >> > basebypassed >> > User 109.12 105.64 >> > System 1646.84 159

Re: [RFC 2/4] memcg: make it suck faster

2012-09-25 Thread Andrew Morton
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:52:51 +0400 Glauber Costa wrote: > It is an accepted fact that memcg sucks. But can it suck faster? Or in > a more fair statement, can it at least stop draining everyone's > performance when it is not in use? > > This experimental and slightly crude patch demonstrates tha

[RFC 2/4] memcg: make it suck faster

2012-09-25 Thread Glauber Costa
It is an accepted fact that memcg sucks. But can it suck faster? Or in a more fair statement, can it at least stop draining everyone's performance when it is not in use? This experimental and slightly crude patch demonstrates that we can do that by using static branches to patch it out until the