linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] memcg: add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty limits

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>
cc:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] memcg: add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty
 limits

On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Andrea Righi wrote:

> mmh... looking at the code it seems the same behaviour, but in
> Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt we say a different thing (i.e., for
> dirty_bytes):
> 
> "If dirty_bytes is written, dirty_ratio becomes a function of its value
> (dirty_bytes / the amount of dirtyable system memory)."
> 
> However, in dirty_bytes_handler()/dirty_ratio_handler() we actually set
> the counterpart value as 0.
> 
> I think we should clarify the documentation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>

Thanks for cc'ing me on this, Andrea.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/