On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:04:42 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So the world wouldn't end if we just didn't merge it. Those users > > stick with their workarounds and the kernel remains simpler and > > smaller. > > > > Agreed. This patchset is admittedly from a different time when cpusets > was the only relevant extension that needed to be done. > BTW, what is the problem this patch wants to fix ? 1. avoid slow-down of memory allocation by triggering write-out earlier. 2. avoid OOM by throttoling dirty pages. About 1, memcg's diry_ratio can help if mounted as mount -t cgroup none /somewhere/ -o cpuset,memory (If the user can accept overheads of memcg.) If implemented. About 2, A Google guy posted OOM handler cgroup to linux-mm. > > How do we work out which is the best choice here? I don't have enough > > information to do this. > > > > If we are to support memcg-specific dirty ratios, that requires the > aforementioned statistics to be collected so that the calculation is even > possible. The series at > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122123225006571 > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122123241106902 > yes. we(memcg) need this kind of. > is a step in that direction, although I'd prefer to see NR_UNSTABLE_NFS to > be extracted separately from MEM_CGROUP_STAT_FILE_DIRTY so > throttle_vm_writeout() can also use the new statistics. > Thank you for input. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers