From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:15:11 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] dirty balancing for cgroups Message-Id: <20080711141511.515e69a5.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080711040657.87AE71E3DF1@siro.lan> References: <20080711085449.ba7d14dd.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080711040657.87AE71E3DF1@siro.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: YAMAMOTO Takashi Cc: menage@google.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:06:57 +0900 (JST) yamamoto@valinux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote: > hi, > > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:00:34 +0900 (JST) > > yamamoto@valinux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote: > > > > > hi, > > > > > > the following patch is a simple implementation of > > > dirty balancing for cgroups. any comments? > > > > > > it depends on the following fix: > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/8/428 > > > > > > > A few comments ;) > > thanks for comments. > > > - This looks simple but, could you merge this into memory resource controller ? > > why? > 3 points. 1. Is this useful if used alone ? 2. memcg requires this kind of feature, basically. 3. I wonder I need more work to make this work well under memcg. If chasing page->cgroup and memcg make this patch much more complex, I think this style of implimentation is a choice. About 3. Does this works well if I changes get_dirty_limit()'s determine_dirtyable_memory() calculation under memcg ? But to do this seems not valid if dirty_ratio cgroup and memcg cgroup containes different set of tasks. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org