[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0811051347240.21365@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:04:42 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
npiggin@...e.de, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, dfults@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] cpuset writeback throttling
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> See, here's my problem: we have a pile of new code which fixes some
> problem. But the problem seems to be fairly small - it only affects a
> small number of sophisticated users and they already have workarounds
> in place.
>
The workarounds, while restrictive of how you configure your cpusets, are
indeed effective.
> So the world wouldn't end if we just didn't merge it. Those users
> stick with their workarounds and the kernel remains simpler and
> smaller.
>
Agreed. This patchset is admittedly from a different time when cpusets
was the only relevant extension that needed to be done.
> How do we work out which is the best choice here? I don't have enough
> information to do this.
>
If we are to support memcg-specific dirty ratios, that requires the
aforementioned statistics to be collected so that the calculation is even
possible. The series at
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122123225006571
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122123241106902
is a step in that direction, although I'd prefer to see NR_UNSTABLE_NFS to
be extracted separately from MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_DIRTY so
throttle_vm_writeout() can also use the new statistics.
--
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