From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 316205F0040 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:19:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o9K1Jooi013819 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:19:50 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4601945DE4E for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:19:49 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9AFC45DE55 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:19:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AAAE08008 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:19:48 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D371E18005 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:19:47 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:14:21 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] memcg: document cgroup dirty memory interfaces Message-Id: <20101020101421.05325710.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20101020094821.75c70fe3.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> References: <1287448784-25684-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <1287448784-25684-3-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <20101019172744.45e0a8dc.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <20101020091109.ccd7b39a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20101020094821.75c70fe3.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Daisuke Nishimura Cc: Greg Thelen , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, Andrea Righi , Balbir Singh , Minchan Kim , Ciju Rajan K , David Rientjes List-ID: On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:48:21 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:11:09 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:00:58 -0700 > > Greg Thelen wrote: > > > (snip) > > > +When use_hierarchy=0, each cgroup has independent dirty memory usage and limits. > > > + > > > +When use_hierarchy=1, a parent cgroup increasing its dirty memory usage will > > > +compare its total_dirty memory (which includes sum of all child cgroup dirty > > > +memory) to its dirty limits. This keeps a parent from explicitly exceeding its > > > +dirty limits. However, a child cgroup can increase its dirty usage without > > > +considering the parent's dirty limits. Thus the parent's total_dirty can exceed > > > +the parent's dirty limits as a child dirties pages. > > > > Hmm. in short, dirty_ratio in use_hierarchy=1 doesn't work as an user expects. > > Is this a spec. or a current implementation ? > > > > I think as following. > > - add a limitation as "At setting chidlren's dirty_ratio, it must be below parent's. > > If it exceeds parent's dirty_ratio, EINVAL is returned." > > > > Could you modify setting memory.dirty_ratio code ? > > Then, parent's dirty_ratio will never exceeds its own. (If I understand correctly.) > > > > "memory.dirty_limit_in_bytes" will be a bit more complecated, but I think you can. > > > I agree. > > At the first impression, this limitation seems a bit overkill for me, because > we allow memory.limit_in_bytes of a child bigger than that of parent now. > But considering more, the situation is different, because usage_in_bytes never > exceeds limit_in_bytes. > I'd like to consider a patch. Please mention that "use_hierarchy=1 case depends on implemenation." for now. 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