Re: [PATCH 2/2] memcg: dirty pages instrumentation

[Andrea Righi]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 02:22:12PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> 
> > > > Because you have modified dirtyable_memory() and made it per cgroup, I
> > > > think it automatically takes care of the cases of per cgroup dirty ratio,
> > > > I mentioned in my previous mail. So we will use system wide dirty ratio
> > > > to calculate the allowed dirty pages in this cgroup (dirty_ratio *
> > > > available_memory()) and if this cgroup wrote too many pages start
> > > > writeout? 
> > > 
> > > OK, if I've understood well, you're proposing to use per-cgroup
> > > dirty_ratio interface and do something like:
> > 
> > I think we can use system wide dirty_ratio for per cgroup (instead of
> > providing configurable dirty_ratio for each cgroup where each memory
> > cgroup can have different dirty ratio. Can't think of a use case
> > immediately).
> 
> I think each memcg should have both dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio, 
> dirty_bytes defaults to 0 (disabled) while dirty_ratio is inherited from 
> the global vm_dirty_ratio.  Changing vm_dirty_ratio would not change 
> memcgs already using their own dirty_ratio, but new memcgs would get the 
> new value by default.  The ratio would act over the amount of available 
> memory to the cgroup as though it were its own "virtual system" operating 
> with a subset of the system's RAM and the same global ratio.

Agreed.

-Andrea
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/