linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20110316090042.e1f0183b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:00:42 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Mike Heffner <mike@...rato.com>
Cc:	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chad Talbott <ctalbott@...gle.com>,
	Justin TerAvest <teravest@...gle.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
	Ciju Rajan K <ciju@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	containers@...ts.osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] memcg: add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty
 limits

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:01:05 -0400
Mike Heffner <mike@...rato.com> wrote:

> On 03/11/2011 01:43 PM, Greg Thelen wrote:
> > Add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty page limits:
> >    Direct write-out is controlled with:
> >    - memory.dirty_ratio
> >    - memory.dirty_limit_in_bytes
> >
> >    Background write-out is controlled with:
> >    - memory.dirty_background_ratio
> >    - memory.dirty_background_limit_bytes
> 
> 
> What's the overlap, if any, with the current memory limits controlled by 
> `memory.limit_in_bytes` and the above `memory.dirty_limit_in_bytes`? If 
> I want to fairly balance memory between two cgroups be one a dirty page 
> antagonist (dd) and the other an anonymous page (memcache), do I just 
> set `memory.limit_in_bytes`? Does this patch simply provide a more 
> granular level of control of the dirty limits?
> 

dirty_ratio is for control
 - speed of write() within cgroup.
 - risk of huge latency at memory reclaim (and OOM)
   Small dirty ratio means big ratio of clean page within cgroup.
   This will make memory reclaim, pageout easier.

memory.limit_in_bytes controls the amount of memory.

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/