From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 63CE68D0030 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:54:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o9T7sA8S005706 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:54:11 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BE245DE6E for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:54:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A502D45DE70 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:54:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8493B1DB8037 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:54:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F8131DB803F for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:54:07 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:48:35 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] memcg: check memcg dirty limits in page writeback Message-Id: <20101029164835.06eef3cf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <1288336154-23256-12-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> References: <1288336154-23256-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <1288336154-23256-12-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Greg Thelen Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, Andrea Righi , Balbir Singh , Daisuke Nishimura , Minchan Kim , Ciju Rajan K , David Rientjes , Wu Fengguang List-ID: On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:09:14 -0700 Greg Thelen wrote: > If the current process is in a non-root memcg, then > balance_dirty_pages() will consider the memcg dirty limits > as well as the system-wide limits. This allows different > cgroups to have distinct dirty limits which trigger direct > and background writeback at different levels. > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi > Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Ideally, I think some comments in the code for "why we need double-check system's dirty limit and memcg's dirty limit" will be appreciated. -- 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