On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:57:04AM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:22:34AM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > >> > Yeah, available memory to the matching memcg and the number of dirty > >> > pages in it. It's gonna work the same way as the global case just > >> > scoped to the cgroup. > >> > >> That might be a problem: all dirty pages accounted to cgroup must be > >> reachable for its own personal writeback or balanace-drity-pages will be > >> unable to satisfy memcg dirty memory thresholds. I've done accounting > > > > Yeah, it would. Why wouldn't it? > > How do you plan to do per-memcg/blkcg writeback for balance-dirty-pages? > Or you're thinking only about separating writeback flow into blkio cgroups > without actual inode filtering? I mean delaying inode writeback and keeping > dirty pages as long as possible if their cgroups are far from threshold. What? The code was already in the previous patchset. I'm just gonna rip out the code to handle inode being dirtied on multiple wb's. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>