From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] dirty balancing for cgroups In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:49:04 +0200" <1216043344.12595.89.camel@twins> References: <1216043344.12595.89.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20080717014335.ED78A5A22@siro.lan> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:43:35 +0900 (JST) From: yamamoto@valinux.co.jp (YAMAMOTO Takashi) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl Cc: kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, menage@google.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: hi, > Now the problem this patch tries to address... > > As you can see you'd need p_{bdi,cgroup,task} for it to work, and the > obvious approximation p_bdi * p_cgroup * p_task will get even more > coarse. > > You could possibly attempt to do p_{bdi,cgroup} * p_task since the bdi > and cgroup set are pretty static, but still that would be painful. i chose min(p_bdi * p_cgroup, p_bdi * p_task) because i couldn't imagine a case where p_bdi * p_cgroup * p_task is better. > So, could you please give some more justification for this work, I'm not > seeing the value in complicating all this just yet. a simple example for which my patch can make some sense is: while :;do dd if=/dev/zero of=file conv=notrunc bs=4096 count=1;done YAMAMOTO Takashi -- 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