|From:||David Miller <davem-AT-davemloft.net>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Request for inclusion: tcp memory buffers|
|Date:||Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:12:21 -0400 (EDT)|
|Cc:||linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org, lizf-AT-cn.fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu-AT-jp.fujitsu.com, ebiederm-AT-xmission.com, paul-AT-paulmenage.org, gthelen-AT-google.com, netdev-AT-vger.kernel.org, linux-mm-AT-kvack.org, kirill-AT-shutemov.name, avagin-AT-parallels.com, devel-AT-openvz.org|
From: Glauber Costa <email@example.com> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:05:58 +0400 > Also, I kind of dispute the affirmation that !cgroup will encompass > the majority of users, since cgroups is being enabled by default by > most vendors. All systemd based systems use it extensively, for > instance. I will definitely advise people against this, since the cost of having this on by default is absolutely non-trivial. People keep asking every few releases "where the heck has my performance gone" and it's because of creeping features like this. This socket cgroup feature is a prime example of where that kind of stuff comes from. I really get irritated when people go "oh, it's just one indirect function call" and "oh, it's just one more pointer in struct sock" We work really hard to _remove_ elements from structures and make them smaller, and to remove expensive operations from the fast paths. It might take someone weeks if not months to find a way to make a patch which compensates for the extra overhead your patches are adding. And I don't think you fully appreciate that. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to firstname.lastname@example.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"email@example.com"> firstname.lastname@example.org </a>
Copyright © 2011, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds