[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100818144809.GF28417@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:18:09 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Per file dirty limit throttling
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2010-08-18 16:25:18]:
> On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 19:38 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> > There is an ongoing effort to look at per-cgroup dirty limits and I
> > honestly think it would be nice to do it at that level first. We need
> > it there as a part of the overall I/O controller. As a specialized
> > need it could handle your case as well.
>
> Well, it would be good to isolate that to the cgroup code. Also from
> what I understood, the plan was to simply mark dirty inodes with a
> cgroup and use that from writeout_inodes() to write out inodes
> specifically used by that cgroup.
>
> That is, on top of what Andrea Righi already proposed, which would
> provide the actual per cgroup dirty limit (although the per-bdi
> proportions applied to a cgroup limit aren't strictly correct, but that
> seems to be something you'll have to live with, a per-bdi-per-cgroup
> proportion would simply be accounting insanity).
>
> That is a totally different thing than what was proposed.
Understood, I was indirectly trying to get Nikanth to look at cgroups
since he was interested in the dirtier (as in task).
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists