From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: Too many I/O controller patches Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:25:37 -0700 Message-ID: <1217953537.10907.30.camel@nimitz> References: <20080804.175126.193692178.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <1217870433.20260.101.camel@nimitz> <489748E6.5080106@gmail.com> <1217876521.20260.123.camel@nimitz> <48976A2A.9060600@gmail.com> <6599ad830808042255y59215481l5463d4dca9fb2001@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6599ad830808042255y59215481l5463d4dca9fb2001@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Menage Cc: righi.andrea@gmail.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, agk@sourceware.org List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 22:55 -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > > As Dave suggested, I think it would make more sense to have your > page-dirtying throttle points hook into the memory controller instead, > and allow the memory controller to track/limit dirty pages for a > cgroup, and potentially do throttling as part of that. Yeah, I'm sure we're going to have to get to setting the dirty ratio $ cat /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio 40 on a per-container basis at *some* point. We might as well do it earlier rather than later. -- Dave