lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 02/11] memcg: document cgroup dirty memory interfaces
    On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:24:31 +0900
    KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

    > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:14:21 +0900
    > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:48:21 +0900
    > > Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:11:09 +0900
    > > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:00:58 -0700
    > > > > Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > (snip)
    > > > > > +When use_hierarchy=0, each cgroup has independent dirty memory usage and limits.
    > > > > > +
    > > > > > +When use_hierarchy=1, a parent cgroup increasing its dirty memory usage will
    > > > > > +compare its total_dirty memory (which includes sum of all child cgroup dirty
    > > > > > +memory) to its dirty limits. This keeps a parent from explicitly exceeding its
    > > > > > +dirty limits. However, a child cgroup can increase its dirty usage without
    > > > > > +considering the parent's dirty limits. Thus the parent's total_dirty can exceed
    > > > > > +the parent's dirty limits as a child dirties pages.
    > > > >
    > > > > Hmm. in short, dirty_ratio in use_hierarchy=1 doesn't work as an user expects.
    > > > > Is this a spec. or a current implementation ?
    > > > >
    > > > > I think as following.
    > > > > - add a limitation as "At setting chidlren's dirty_ratio, it must be below parent's.
    > > > > If it exceeds parent's dirty_ratio, EINVAL is returned."
    > > > >
    > > > > Could you modify setting memory.dirty_ratio code ?
    > > > > Then, parent's dirty_ratio will never exceeds its own. (If I understand correctly.)
    > > > >
    > > > > "memory.dirty_limit_in_bytes" will be a bit more complecated, but I think you can.
    > > > >
    > > > I agree.
    > > >
    > > > At the first impression, this limitation seems a bit overkill for me, because
    > > > we allow memory.limit_in_bytes of a child bigger than that of parent now.
    > > > But considering more, the situation is different, because usage_in_bytes never
    > > > exceeds limit_in_bytes.
    > > >
    > >
    > > I'd like to consider a patch.
    > > Please mention that "use_hierarchy=1 case depends on implemenation." for now.
    > >
    >
    > BTW, how about supporing dirty_limit_in_bytes when use_hierarchy=0 or leave it as
    > broken when use_hierarchy=1 ?
    > It seems we can only support dirty_ratio when hierarchy is used.
    >
    It's all right for me.
    This feature would be useful even w/o hierarchy support.

    Thanks,
    Daisuke Nishimura.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-10-20 05:51    [W:0.055 / U:63.804 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site