> > > - This looks simple but, could you merge this into memory resource controller ? > > > > why? > > > 3 points. > 1. Is this useful if used alone ? it can be. why not? > 2. memcg requires this kind of feature, basically. > > 3. I wonder I need more work to make this work well under memcg. i'm not sure if i understand these points. can you explain a bit? my patch penalizes heavy-writer cgroups as task_dirty_limit does for heavy-writer tasks. i don't think that it's necessary to be tied to the memory subsystem because i merely want to group writers. otoh, if you want to limit the number (or percentage or whatever) of dirty pages in a memory cgroup, it can't be done independently from the memory subsystem, of course. it's another story, tho. YAMAMOTO Takashi > > 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