On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Andrea Righi wrote: > > 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. > > > > Hi Kame, > > sorry for my late. If it's not too late tonight I'll rebase and test (1) > to 2.6.28-rc2-mm1 and start to rework on (2), also considering the > David's suggestion (split NR_UNSTABLE_NFS from NR_FILE_DIRTY). > The dirty throttling change only depends on patch 1/2 from (2) above, which adds the necessary statistics to the memcg for calculating dirty ratios. Patch 2/2 from that series will need to be moved out to a separate cgroup as the general consensus from this discussion has indicated is necessary. If it's possible to get a rebased patch 1/2 to add the statistics to the memory controller, I'll take it and move the all dirty throttling to a separate cgroup so it supports both cpusets and memcg. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers