On Thu, 12 May 2011 17:17:25 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:22:37 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'll check what codes in vmscan.c or /mm affects memcg and post a > required fix in step by step. I think I found some.. > After some tests, I doubt that 'automatic' one is unnecessary until memcg's dirty_ratio is supported. And as Andrew pointed out, total cpu consumption is unchanged and I don't have workloads which shows me meaningful speed up. But I guess...with dirty_ratio, amount of dirty pages in memcg is limited and background reclaim can work enough without noise of write_page() while applications are throttled by dirty_ratio. Hmm, I'll study for a while but it seems better to start active soft limit, (or some threshold users can set) first. Anyway, this work makes me to see vmscan.c carefully and I think I can post some patches for fix, tunes. 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>