[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090421101617.27d62587.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:16:17 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
arozansk@...hat.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
paolo.valente@...more.it, jmoyer@...hat.com,
fernando@...ellilink.co.jp, oz-kernel@...hat.com,
fchecconi@...il.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: IO controller discussion (Was: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation)
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:53:59 +0200
Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Got a question for you. Does memory controller already have the per cgroup
> > dirty pages limit? If no, has this been discussed in the past? if yes,
> > what was the conclsion?
>
IMHO, dirty page handling and I/O throttling is a different problem.
- A task (or cgroup) which makes the page dirty
and
- A task (or cgroup) to which a page is accounted
Is different from each other, in general.
I have a plan to add dirty_ratio to memcg, but it's for avoiding massive stavation in
memory reclaim, not for I/O control.
If you want to implement I/O throttle in MM layer, plz don't depend on memcg.
The perpose is different.
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