KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:58:03 -0700
> Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty page limits:
>> Direct write-out is controlled with:
>> - memory.dirty_ratio
>> - memory.dirty_bytes
>>
>> Background write-out is controlled with:
>> - memory.dirty_background_ratio
>> - memory.dirty_background_bytes
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> a question below.
>
>
>> ---
>> mm/memcontrol.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> index 6ec2625..2d45a0a 100644
>> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> @@ -100,6 +100,13 @@ enum mem_cgroup_stat_index {
>> MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS,
>> };
>>
>> +enum {
>> + MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO,
>> + MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES,
>> + MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO,
>> + MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES,
>> +};
>> +
>> struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu {
>> s64 count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS];
>> };
>> @@ -4292,6 +4299,64 @@ static int mem_cgroup_oom_control_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static u64 mem_cgroup_dirty_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
>> +{
>> + struct mem_cgroup *mem = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
>> + bool root;
>> +
>> + root = mem_cgroup_is_root(mem);
>> +
>> + switch (cft->private) {
>> + case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO:
>> + return root ? vm_dirty_ratio : mem->dirty_param.dirty_ratio;
>> + case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES:
>> + return root ? vm_dirty_bytes : mem->dirty_param.dirty_bytes;
>> + case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO:
>> + return root ? dirty_background_ratio :
>> + mem->dirty_param.dirty_background_ratio;
>> + case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES:
>> + return root ? dirty_background_bytes :
>> + mem->dirty_param.dirty_background_bytes;
>> + default:
>> + BUG();
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int
>> +mem_cgroup_dirty_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
>> +{
>> + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
>> + int type = cft->private;
>> +
>> + if (cgrp->parent == NULL)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + if ((type == MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO ||
>> + type == MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO) && val > 100)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + switch (type) {
>> + case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO:
>> + memcg->dirty_param.dirty_ratio = val;
>> + memcg->dirty_param.dirty_bytes = 0;
>> + break;
>> + case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES:
>> + memcg->dirty_param.dirty_bytes = val;
>> + memcg->dirty_param.dirty_ratio = 0;
>> + break;
>> + case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO:
>> + memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_ratio = val;
>> + memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_bytes = 0;
>> + break;
>> + case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES:
>> + memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_bytes = val;
>> + memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_ratio = 0;
>> + break;
>
>
> Curious....is this same behavior as vm_dirty_ratio ?
I think this is same behavior as vm_dirty_ratio. When vm_dirty_ratio is
changed then dirty_ratio_handler() will set vm_dirty_bytes=0. When
vm_dirty_bytes is written dirty_bytes_handler() will set
vm_dirty_ratio=0. So I think that the per-memcg dirty memory parameters
mimic the behavior of vm_dirty_ratio, vm_dirty_bytes and the other
global dirty parameters.
Am I missing your question?
> Thanks,
> -Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>