[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100311180753.GE29246@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:07:53 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 0/5] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v6)
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:00:31AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given time.
>
> Per cgroup dirty limit is like fixing the max amount of dirty (hard to reclaim)
> page cache used by any cgroup. So, in case of multiple cgroup writers, they
> will not be able to consume more than their designated share of dirty pages and
> will be forced to perform write-out if they cross that limit.
>
> The overall design is the following:
>
> - account dirty pages per cgroup
> - limit the number of dirty pages via memory.dirty_ratio / memory.dirty_bytes
> and memory.dirty_background_ratio / memory.dirty_background_bytes in
> cgroupfs
> - start to write-out (background or actively) when the cgroup limits are
> exceeded
>
> This feature is supposed to be strictly connected to any underlying IO
> controller implementation, so we can stop increasing dirty pages in VM layer
> and enforce a write-out before any cgroup will consume the global amount of
> dirty pages defined by the /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio|dirty_bytes and
> /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio|dirty_background_bytes limits.
>
Hi Andrea,
I am doing a simple dd test of writting a 4G file. This machine has got
64G of memory and I have created one cgroup with 100M as limit_in_bytes.
I run following dd program both in root cgroup as well as test1/
cgroup(100M limit) one after the other.
In root cgroup
==============
dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/zerofile bs=4K count=1000000
1000000+0 records in
1000000+0 records out
4096000000 bytes (4.1 GB) copied, 59.5571 s, 68.8 MB/s
In test1/ cgroup
===============
dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/zerofile bs=4K count=1000000
1000000+0 records in
1000000+0 records out
4096000000 bytes (4.1 GB) copied, 20.6683 s, 198 MB/s
It is strange that we are throttling process in root group much more than
process in test1/ cgroup?
Thanks
Vivek
--
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