[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Making memcg track ownership per address_space or anon_vma
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Tejun Heo <> 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 <> 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

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-11 23:41    [W:0.051 / U:29.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site