On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:01:05 -0400 Mike Heffner <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/11/2011 01:43 PM, Greg Thelen wrote: > > Add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty page limits: > > Direct write-out is controlled with: > > - memory.dirty_ratio > > - memory.dirty_limit_in_bytes > > > > Background write-out is controlled with: > > - memory.dirty_background_ratio > > - memory.dirty_background_limit_bytes > > > What's the overlap, if any, with the current memory limits controlled by > `memory.limit_in_bytes` and the above `memory.dirty_limit_in_bytes`? If > I want to fairly balance memory between two cgroups be one a dirty page > antagonist (dd) and the other an anonymous page (memcache), do I just > set `memory.limit_in_bytes`? Does this patch simply provide a more > granular level of control of the dirty limits? > dirty_ratio is for control - speed of write() within cgroup. - risk of huge latency at memory reclaim (and OOM) Small dirty ratio means big ratio of clean page within cgroup. This will make memory reclaim, pageout easier. memory.limit_in_bytes controls the amount of memory. 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>