linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mmotm 0/5] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v7)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:15:14 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.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 (v7)

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:23:27AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> [2010-03-17 09:34:07]:
> 
> > > > 
> > > > root cgroup
> > > > ==========
> > > > #time dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/zerofile bs=4K count=1M
> > > > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 56.098 s, 76.6 MB/s
> > > > 
> > > > real	0m56.614s
> > > > 
> > > > test1 cgroup with memory limit 100M
> > > > ===================================
> > > > # time dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/zerofile1 bs=4K count=1M
> > > > 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 19.8097 s, 217 MB/s
> > > > 
> > > > real	0m19.992s
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > This is strange, did you flish the cache between the two runs?
> > > NOTE: Since the files are same, we reuse page cache from the
> > > other cgroup.
> > 
> > Files are different. Note suffix "1".
> >
> 
> Thanks, I'll get the perf output and see what I get. 

One more thing I noticed and that is, it happens only if we limit the
memory of cgroup to 100M. If same cgroup test1 is unlimited memory 
thing, then it did not happen.

I also did not notice this happening on other system where I have 4G of
memory. So it also seems to be related with only bigger configurations.

Thanks
Vivek

> 
> -- 
> 	Three Cheers,
> 	Balbir
--
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/