Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757139Ab1CPAHX (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:07:23 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:57375 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755516Ab1CPAHV (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:07:21 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:00:42 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Mike Heffner Cc: Greg Thelen , 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 Message-Id: <20110316090042.e1f0183b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <4D7F7121.5040009@librato.com> References: <1299869011-26152-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <1299869011-26152-7-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <4D7F7121.5040009@librato.com> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1393 Lines: 38 On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:01:05 -0400 Mike Heffner wrote: > 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? > dirty_ratio is for control - speed of write() within cgroup. - risk of huge latency at memory reclaim (and OOM) Small dirty ratio means big ratio of clean page within cgroup. This will make memory reclaim, pageout easier. memory.limit_in_bytes controls the amount of memory. Thanks, -Kame -- 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/