On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 01:36:00PM -0800, Greg Thelen wrote: > > [..] >> @@ -500,18 +527,27 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, >> }; >> >> global_dirty_info(&sys_info); >> + if (!memcg_dirty_info(NULL, &memcg_info)) >> + memcg_info = sys_info; >> >> /* >> * Throttle it only when the background writeback cannot >> * catch-up. This avoids (excessively) small writeouts >> * when the bdi limits are ramping up. >> */ >> - if (dirty_info_reclaimable(&sys_info) + sys_info.nr_writeback <= >> + if ((dirty_info_reclaimable(&sys_info) + >> + sys_info.nr_writeback <= >> (sys_info.background_thresh + >> - sys_info.dirty_thresh) / 2) >> + sys_info.dirty_thresh) / 2) && >> + (dirty_info_reclaimable(&memcg_info) + >> + memcg_info.nr_writeback <= >> + (memcg_info.background_thresh + >> + memcg_info.dirty_thresh) / 2)) >> break; >> >> - bdi_thresh = bdi_dirty_limit(bdi, sys_info.dirty_thresh); >> + bdi_thresh = bdi_dirty_limit(bdi, >> + min(sys_info.dirty_thresh, >> + memcg_info.dirty_thresh)); >> bdi_thresh = task_dirty_limit(current, bdi_thresh); > > Greg, so currently we seem to have per_bdi/per_task dirty limits and > now with this patch it will sort of become per_cgroup/per_bdi/per_task > dirty limits? I think that kind of makes sense to me. > > Thanks > Vivek > Vivek, you are correct. This patch adds per_cgroup limits to the existing system, bdi, and system dirty memory limits. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href