On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:06:57 +0900 (JST) yamamoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (YAMAMOTO Takashi) wrote: > hi, > > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:00:34 +0900 (JST) > > yamamoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (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 _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers