On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 02:22:12PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > > Because you have modified dirtyable_memory() and made it per cgroup, I > > > > think it automatically takes care of the cases of per cgroup dirty ratio, > > > > I mentioned in my previous mail. So we will use system wide dirty ratio > > > > to calculate the allowed dirty pages in this cgroup (dirty_ratio * > > > > available_memory()) and if this cgroup wrote too many pages start > > > > writeout? > > > > > > OK, if I've understood well, you're proposing to use per-cgroup > > > dirty_ratio interface and do something like: > > > > I think we can use system wide dirty_ratio for per cgroup (instead of > > providing configurable dirty_ratio for each cgroup where each memory > > cgroup can have different dirty ratio. Can't think of a use case > > immediately). > > I think each memcg should have both dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio, > dirty_bytes defaults to 0 (disabled) while dirty_ratio is inherited from > the global vm_dirty_ratio. Changing vm_dirty_ratio would not change > memcgs already using their own dirty_ratio, but new memcgs would get the > new value by default. The ratio would act over the amount of available > memory to the cgroup as though it were its own "virtual system" operating > with a subset of the system's RAM and the same global ratio. Agreed. -Andrea _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
