[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080711055926.9AF4F5A03@siro.lan>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:59:26 +0900 (JST)
From: yamamoto@...inux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi)
To: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, linux-mm@...ck.org, menage@...gle.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] dirty balancing for cgroups
> > > - This looks simple but, could you merge this into memory resource controller ?
> >
> > why?
> >
> 3 points.
> 1. Is this useful if used alone ?
it can be. why not?
> 2. memcg requires this kind of feature, basically.
>
> 3. I wonder I need more work to make this work well under memcg.
i'm not sure if i understand these points. can you explain a bit?
my patch penalizes heavy-writer cgroups as task_dirty_limit does
for heavy-writer tasks. i don't think that it's necessary to be
tied to the memory subsystem because i merely want to group writers.
otoh, if you want to limit the number (or percentage or whatever) of
dirty pages in a memory cgroup, it can't be done independently from
the memory subsystem, of course. it's another story, tho.
YAMAMOTO Takashi
>
> 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