On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Well, ok. Even if shared writes are rare whey should be handled somehow without relying on kupdate-like writeback. If memcg has a lot of dirty pages but their inodes are accidentially belong to wrong wb queues when tasks in that memcg shouldn't stuck in balance-dirty-pages until somebody outside acidentially writes this data. That's all what I wanted to say. > > -- > 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>