linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] memcg: add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty limits

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]

Message-Id: <20101005163142.b98e9778.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:31:42 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] memcg: add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty
 limits

On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:33:15 -0700
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com> wrote:

> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sun,  3 Oct 2010 23:58:03 -0700
> > Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty page limits:
> >>   Direct write-out is controlled with:
> >>   - memory.dirty_ratio
> >>   - memory.dirty_bytes
> >> 
> >>   Background write-out is controlled with:
> >>   - memory.dirty_background_ratio
> >>   - memory.dirty_background_bytes
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
> >
> > Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> >
> > a question below.
> >
> >
> >> ---
> >>  mm/memcontrol.c |   89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >> index 6ec2625..2d45a0a 100644
> >> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
> >> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
> >> @@ -100,6 +100,13 @@ enum mem_cgroup_stat_index {
> >>  	MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS,
> >>  };
> >>  
> >> +enum {
> >> +	MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO,
> >> +	MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES,
> >> +	MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO,
> >> +	MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >>  struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu {
> >>  	s64 count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS];
> >>  };
> >> @@ -4292,6 +4299,64 @@ static int mem_cgroup_oom_control_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> >>  	return 0;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +static u64 mem_cgroup_dirty_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct mem_cgroup *mem = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> >> +	bool root;
> >> +
> >> +	root = mem_cgroup_is_root(mem);
> >> +
> >> +	switch (cft->private) {
> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO:
> >> +		return root ? vm_dirty_ratio : mem->dirty_param.dirty_ratio;
> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES:
> >> +		return root ? vm_dirty_bytes : mem->dirty_param.dirty_bytes;
> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO:
> >> +		return root ? dirty_background_ratio :
> >> +			mem->dirty_param.dirty_background_ratio;
> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES:
> >> +		return root ? dirty_background_bytes :
> >> +			mem->dirty_param.dirty_background_bytes;
> >> +	default:
> >> +		BUG();
> >> +	}
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int
> >> +mem_cgroup_dirty_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> >> +	int type = cft->private;
> >> +
> >> +	if (cgrp->parent == NULL)
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +	if ((type == MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO ||
> >> +	     type == MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO) && val > 100)
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +	switch (type) {
> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO:
> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_ratio = val;
> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_bytes = 0;
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES:
> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_bytes = val;
> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_ratio  = 0;
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO:
> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_ratio = val;
> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_bytes = 0;
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES:
> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_bytes = val;
> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_ratio = 0;
> >> +		break;
> >
> >
> > Curious....is this same behavior as vm_dirty_ratio ?
> 
> I think this is same behavior as vm_dirty_ratio.  When vm_dirty_ratio is
> changed then dirty_ratio_handler() will set vm_dirty_bytes=0.  When
> vm_dirty_bytes is written dirty_bytes_handler() will set
> vm_dirty_ratio=0.  So I think that the per-memcg dirty memory parameters
> mimic the behavior of vm_dirty_ratio, vm_dirty_bytes and the other
> global dirty parameters.
> 
Okay.

> Am I missing your question?
> 
No. Thank you for clarification.

-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/