Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757911Ab1COOBK (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:01:10 -0400 Received: from mail-px0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:43524 "EHLO mail-px0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751280Ab1COOBJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:01:09 -0400 Message-ID: <4D7F7121.5040009@librato.com> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:01:05 -0400 From: Mike Heffner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090320 Fedora/2.0.0.21-1.fc9 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Thelen CC: Andrew Morton , Chad Talbott , Justin TerAvest , Andrea Righi , Ciju Rajan K , David Rientjes , Daisuke Nishimura , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vivek Goyal , linux-mm@kvack.org, Johannes Weiner , containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Wu Fengguang , Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] memcg: add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty limits References: <1299869011-26152-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <1299869011-26152-7-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> In-Reply-To: <1299869011-26152-7-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 996 Lines: 27 On 03/11/2011 01:43 PM, Greg Thelen 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 What's the overlap, if any, with the current memory limits controlled by `memory.limit_in_bytes` and the above `memory.dirty_limit_in_bytes`? If I want to fairly balance memory between two cgroups be one a dirty page antagonist (dd) and the other an anonymous page (memcache), do I just set `memory.limit_in_bytes`? Does this patch simply provide a more granular level of control of the dirty limits? Thanks, Mike -- 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/