Greg Thelen 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>
---
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;
+ default:
+ BUG();
+ break;
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
static struct cftype mem_cgroup_files[] = {
{
.name = "usage_in_bytes",
@@ -4355,6 +4420,30 @@ static struct cftype mem_cgroup_files[] = {
.unregister_event = mem_cgroup_oom_unregister_event,
.private = MEMFILE_PRIVATE(_OOM_TYPE, OOM_CONTROL),
},
+ {
+ .name = "dirty_ratio",
+ .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_read,
+ .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_write,
+ .private = MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "dirty_bytes",
+ .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_read,
+ .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_write,
+ .private = MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES,
+ },
+ {
Is it a good idea to rename "dirty_bytes" to "dirty_limit_in_bytes" ?
So that it can match with other memcg tunable naming convention.
We already have memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes, memory.limit_in_bytes,
memory.soft_limit_in_bytes, etc.
+ .name = "dirty_background_ratio",
+ .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_read,
+ .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_write,
+ .private = MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO,
+ },
+ {
+ .name = "dirty_background_bytes",
+ .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_read,
+ .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_write,
+ .private = MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES,
Similarly "dirty_background_bytes" to dirty_background_limit_in_bytes ?
+ },
};
#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_SWAP
--
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>