On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:33:15 -0700
Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
Okay.
> Am I missing your question?
>
No. Thank you for clarification.
-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>