KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:45:08 -0700 > Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > BTW, how about supporing dirty_limit_in_bytes when use_hierarchy=0 or >> > leave it as broken when use_hierarchy=1 ? It seems we can only >> > support dirty_ratio when hierarchy is used. >> >> I am not sure what you mean here. > > When using dirty_ratio, we can check the value of dirty_ratio at setting it > and make guarantee that any children's dirty_ratio cannot exceeds it parent's. > > If we guarantee that, we can keep dirty_ratio even under hierarchy. > > When it comes to dirty_limit_in_bytes, we never able to do such kind of > controls. So, it will be broken and will do different behavior than > dirty_ratio. I think that for use_hierarchy=1, we could support either dirty_ratio or dirty_limit_in_bytes. The code that modifies dirty_limit_in_bytes could ensure that the sum the dirty_limit_in_bytes of each child does not exceed the parent's dirty_limit_in_bytes. > So, not supporing dirty_bytes when use_hierarchy==1 for now sounds > reasonable to me. Ok, I will add the use_hierarchy==1 check and repost the patches. I will wait to post the -v4 patch series until you post an improved "[PATCH][memcg+dirtylimit] Fix overwriting global vm dirty limit setting by memcg (Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] memcg: per cgroup dirty page accounting" patch. I think it makes sense to integrate that into -v4 of the series. > 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>