On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:34:16AM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> Andrea Righi <arighi@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 12:33:15AM -0700, Greg Thelen 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.
> >>
> >> Am I missing your question?
> >
> > mmh... looking at the code it seems the same behaviour, but in
> > Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt we say a different thing (i.e., for
> > dirty_bytes):
> >
> > "If dirty_bytes is written, dirty_ratio becomes a function of its value
> > (dirty_bytes / the amount of dirtyable system memory)."
> >
> > However, in dirty_bytes_handler()/dirty_ratio_handler() we actually set
> > the counterpart value as 0.
> >
> > I think we should clarify the documentation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This documentation change is general cleanup that is independent of the
> memcg patch series shown on the subject.
Thanks Greg. I'll resend it as an independent patch.
-Andrea
--
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>