[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101020130654.bf861eda.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:06:54 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
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>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Ciju Rajan K <ciju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] memcg: document cgroup dirty memory interfaces
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:45:08 -0700
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com> wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> writes:
> > BTW, how about supporing dirty_limit_in_bytes when use_hierarchy=0 or
> > leave it as broken when use_hierarchy=1 ? It seems we can only
> > support dirty_ratio when hierarchy is used.
>
> I am not sure what you mean here.
When using dirty_ratio, we can check the value of dirty_ratio at setting it
and make guarantee that any children's dirty_ratio cannot exceeds it parent's.
If we guarantee that, we can keep dirty_ratio even under hierarchy.
When it comes to dirty_limit_in_bytes, we never able to do such kind of
controls. So, it will be broken and will do different behavior than
dirty_ratio.
So, not supporing dirty_bytes when use_hierarchy==1 for now sounds reasonable to me.
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