On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 19:05:05 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Generally, I worry that this is a specific fix to a specific problem > encountered on specific machines with specific setups and specific > workloads, and that it's just all too low-level and myopic. > > And now we're back in the usual position where there's existing code and > everyone says it's terribly wonderful and everyone is reluctant to step > back and look at the big picture. Am I wrong? > > > Plus: we need per-memcg dirty-memory throttling, and this is more > important than per-cpuset, I suspect. How will the (already rather > buggy) code look once we've stuffed both of them in there? > > IIUC, Andrea Righ posted 2 patches around dirty_ratio. (added him to CC:) in early October. (1) patch for adding dirty_ratio_pcm. (1/100000) (2) per-memcg dirty ratio. (maybe this..http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/12/121) (1) should be just posted again. Because we have changed page_cgroup implementation, (2) should be reworked. "rework" itself will not be very difficult. (.... we tend to be stick to "what interface is the best" discussion ;) But memcg itself is not so weak against dirty_pages because we don't call try_to_free_pages() becasue of memory shortage but because of memory limitation. BTW, in my current stack, followings are queued. a. handle SwapCache in proper way in memcg. b. handle swap_cgroup (if configured) c. make LRU handling easier For making per-memcg dirty_ratio sane, (a) should go ahead. I do (a) now. If Andrea seems to be too busy, I'll schedule dirty_ratio-for-memcg as my work. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
