Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753620Ab0HROsS (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:48:18 -0400 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:37020 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753148Ab0HROsR (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:48:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:18:09 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Nikanth Karthikesan , Wu Fengguang , Bill Davidsen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Jens Axboe , Andrew Morton , Jan Kara Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Per file dirty limit throttling Message-ID: <20100818144809.GF28417@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <201008160949.51512.knikanth@suse.de> <201008171039.23701.knikanth@suse.de> <1282033475.1926.2093.camel@laptop> <201008181452.05047.knikanth@suse.de> <1282125536.1926.3675.camel@laptop> <20100818140856.GE28417@balbir.in.ibm.com> <1282141518.1926.4048.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1282141518.1926.4048.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1425 Lines: 34 * Peter Zijlstra [2010-08-18 16:25:18]: > On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 19:38 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > There is an ongoing effort to look at per-cgroup dirty limits and I > > honestly think it would be nice to do it at that level first. We need > > it there as a part of the overall I/O controller. As a specialized > > need it could handle your case as well. > > Well, it would be good to isolate that to the cgroup code. Also from > what I understood, the plan was to simply mark dirty inodes with a > cgroup and use that from writeout_inodes() to write out inodes > specifically used by that cgroup. > > That is, on top of what Andrea Righi already proposed, which would > provide the actual per cgroup dirty limit (although the per-bdi > proportions applied to a cgroup limit aren't strictly correct, but that > seems to be something you'll have to live with, a per-bdi-per-cgroup > proportion would simply be accounting insanity). > > That is a totally different thing than what was proposed. Understood, I was indirectly trying to get Nikanth to look at cgroups since he was interested in the dirtier (as in task). -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/