[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080711141511.515e69a5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:15:11 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: yamamoto@...inux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi)
Cc: menage@...gle.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] dirty balancing for cgroups
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:06:57 +0900 (JST)
yamamoto@...inux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> hi,
>
> > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:00:34 +0900 (JST)
> > yamamoto@...inux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote:
> >
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > the following patch is a simple implementation of
> > > dirty balancing for cgroups. any comments?
> > >
> > > it depends on the following fix:
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/8/428
> > >
> >
> > A few comments ;)
>
> thanks for comments.
>
> > - This looks simple but, could you merge this into memory resource controller ?
>
> why?
>
3 points.
1. Is this useful if used alone ?
2. memcg requires this kind of feature, basically.
3. I wonder I need more work to make this work well under memcg.
If chasing page->cgroup and memcg make this patch much more complex,
I think this style of implimentation is a choice.
About 3.
Does this works well if I changes get_dirty_limit()'s
determine_dirtyable_memory() calculation under memcg ?
But to do this seems not valid if dirty_ratio cgroup and memcg cgroup
containes different set of tasks.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists