On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 01:29:34PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > I would't like to add many different interfaces to do the same thing. > > I'd prefer to choose just one interface and always use it. We just have > > to define which is the best one. IMHO dirty_bytes is more generic. If > > we want to define the limit as a % we can always do that in userspace. > > > > dirty_ratio is easy to configure. One system wide default value works for > all the newly created cgroups. For dirty_bytes, you shall have to > configure each and individual cgroup with a specific value depneding on > what is the upper limit of memory for that cgroup. OK. > > Secondly, memory cgroup kind of partitions global memory resource per > cgroup. So if as long as we have global dirty ratio knobs, it makes sense > to have per cgroup dirty ratio knob also. > > But I guess we can introduce that later and use gloabl dirty ratio for > all the memory cgroups (instead of each cgroup having a separate dirty > ratio). The only thing is that we need to enforce this dirty ratio on the > cgroup and if I am reading the code correctly, your modifications of > calculating available_memory() per cgroup should take care of that. At the moment (with dirty_bytes) if the cgroup has dirty_bytes == 0, it simply uses the system wide available_memory(), ignoring the memory upper limit for that cgroup and fallbacks to the current behaviour. With dirty_ratio, should we change the code to *always* apply this percentage to the cgroup memory upper limit, and automatically set it equal to the global dirty_ratio by default when the cgroup is created? mmmh... I vote yes. -Andrea _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
