Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:46:59 +0900 | From | Daisuke Nishimura <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 09/11] memcg: add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty limits |
| |
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:31:10 +0900 Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:39:42 -0700 > Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> 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 > > > > Other memcg cgroupfs files support 'M', 'm', 'k', 'K', 'g' > > and 'G' suffixes for byte counts. This patch provides the > > same functionality for memory.dirty_limit_in_bytes and > > memory.dirty_background_limit_bytes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com> > > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> > > Acked-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> > > One question: shouldn't we return -EINVAL when writing to dirty(_background)_limit_bytes > a bigger value than that of global one(if any) ? Or do you intentionally > set the input value without comparing it with the global value ? > But, hmm..., IMHO we should check it in __mem_cgroup_dirty_param() or something > not to allow dirty pages more than global limit. > Oh, Kamazawa-san has just send a fix for this problem :) Please ignore this comment.
Thanks, Daisuke Nishimura.
| |