From: Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 1/2] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:38:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100301103836.GC2087@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cc557aab1003010058i3a824f98l4cec173fac05911f@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 10:58:35AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
[snip]
> > +static u64 mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + return get_dirty_param(memcg, MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + if ((cgrp->parent == NULL) || (val > 100))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > + memcg->dirty_ratio = val;
> > + memcg->dirty_bytes = 0;
> > + spin_unlock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static u64 mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + return get_dirty_param(memcg, MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + if (cgrp->parent == NULL)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > + memcg->dirty_ratio = 0;
> > + memcg->dirty_bytes = val;
> > + spin_unlock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static u64
> > +mem_cgroup_dirty_background_ratio_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + return get_dirty_param(memcg, MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mem_cgroup_dirty_background_ratio_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> > + struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + if ((cgrp->parent == NULL) || (val > 100))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > + memcg->dirty_background_ratio = val;
> > + memcg->dirty_background_bytes = 0;
> > + spin_unlock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static u64
> > +mem_cgroup_dirty_background_bytes_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + return get_dirty_param(memcg, MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mem_cgroup_dirty_background_bytes_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> > + struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + if (cgrp->parent == NULL)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > + memcg->dirty_background_ratio = 0;
> > + memcg->dirty_background_bytes = val;
> > + spin_unlock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static struct cftype mem_cgroup_files[] = {
> > {
> > .name = "usage_in_bytes",
> > @@ -3518,6 +3785,26 @@ static struct cftype mem_cgroup_files[] = {
> > .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_swappiness_write,
> > },
> > {
> > + .name = "dirty_ratio",
> > + .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio_read,
> > + .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio_write,
> > + },
> > + {
> > + .name = "dirty_bytes",
> > + .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_read,
> > + .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_write,
> > + },
> > + {
> > + .name = "dirty_background_ratio",
> > + .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_background_ratio_read,
> > + .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_background_ratio_write,
> > + },
> > + {
> > + .name = "dirty_background_bytes",
> > + .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_background_bytes_read,
> > + .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_background_bytes_write,
> > + },
> > + {
>
> mem_cgroup_dirty_background_* functions are too similar to
> mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_*. I think they should be combined
> like mem_cgroup_read() and mem_cgroup_write(). It will be
> cleaner.
Agreed.
Thanks,
-Andrea
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mmotm 1/2] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:38:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100301103836.GC2087@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cc557aab1003010058i3a824f98l4cec173fac05911f@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 10:58:35AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
[snip]
> > +static u64 mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + return get_dirty_param(memcg, MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + if ((cgrp->parent == NULL) || (val > 100))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > + memcg->dirty_ratio = val;
> > + memcg->dirty_bytes = 0;
> > + spin_unlock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static u64 mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + return get_dirty_param(memcg, MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + if (cgrp->parent == NULL)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > + memcg->dirty_ratio = 0;
> > + memcg->dirty_bytes = val;
> > + spin_unlock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static u64
> > +mem_cgroup_dirty_background_ratio_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + return get_dirty_param(memcg, MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mem_cgroup_dirty_background_ratio_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> > + struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + if ((cgrp->parent == NULL) || (val > 100))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > + memcg->dirty_background_ratio = val;
> > + memcg->dirty_background_bytes = 0;
> > + spin_unlock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static u64
> > +mem_cgroup_dirty_background_bytes_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + return get_dirty_param(memcg, MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mem_cgroup_dirty_background_bytes_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
> > + struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
> > +
> > + if (cgrp->parent == NULL)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > + memcg->dirty_background_ratio = 0;
> > + memcg->dirty_background_bytes = val;
> > + spin_unlock(&memcg->reclaim_param_lock);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static struct cftype mem_cgroup_files[] = {
> > {
> > .name = "usage_in_bytes",
> > @@ -3518,6 +3785,26 @@ static struct cftype mem_cgroup_files[] = {
> > .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_swappiness_write,
> > },
> > {
> > + .name = "dirty_ratio",
> > + .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio_read,
> > + .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_ratio_write,
> > + },
> > + {
> > + .name = "dirty_bytes",
> > + .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_read,
> > + .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_write,
> > + },
> > + {
> > + .name = "dirty_background_ratio",
> > + .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_background_ratio_read,
> > + .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_background_ratio_write,
> > + },
> > + {
> > + .name = "dirty_background_bytes",
> > + .read_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_background_bytes_read,
> > + .write_u64 = mem_cgroup_dirty_background_bytes_write,
> > + },
> > + {
>
> mem_cgroup_dirty_background_* functions are too similar to
> mem_cgroup_dirty_bytes_*. I think they should be combined
> like mem_cgroup_read() and mem_cgroup_write(). It will be
> cleaner.
Agreed.
Thanks,
-Andrea
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-01 10:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-26 22:52 [PATCH -mmotm 0/2] memcg: per cgroup dirty limit (v2) Andrea Righi
2010-02-26 22:52 ` Andrea Righi
2010-02-26 22:52 ` [PATCH -mmotm 1/2] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure Andrea Righi
2010-02-26 22:52 ` Andrea Righi
2010-03-01 1:09 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-01 1:09 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-01 10:24 ` Andrea Righi
2010-03-01 10:24 ` Andrea Righi
[not found] ` <20100301100910.1d8bd486.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
2010-03-01 10:24 ` Andrea Righi
2010-03-01 8:05 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-01 8:05 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-01 10:30 ` Andrea Righi
2010-03-01 10:30 ` Andrea Righi
[not found] ` <20100301170535.2f1db0ed.nishimura-YQH0OdQVrdy45+QrQBaojngSJqDPrsil@public.gmane.org>
2010-03-01 10:30 ` Andrea Righi
[not found] ` <1267224751-6382-2-git-send-email-arighi-vWjgImWzx8FBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2010-03-01 1:09 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-03-01 8:05 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-03-01 8:58 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2010-03-01 8:58 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2010-03-01 8:58 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2010-03-01 10:38 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2010-03-01 10:38 ` Andrea Righi
[not found] ` <cc557aab1003010058i3a824f98l4cec173fac05911f-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2010-03-01 10:38 ` Andrea Righi
2010-02-26 22:52 ` [PATCH -mmotm 2/2] memcg: dirty pages instrumentation Andrea Righi
2010-02-26 22:52 ` Andrea Righi
[not found] ` <1267224751-6382-1-git-send-email-arighi-vWjgImWzx8FBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2010-02-26 22:52 ` [PATCH -mmotm 1/2] memcg: dirty pages accounting and limiting infrastructure Andrea Righi
2010-02-26 22:52 ` [PATCH -mmotm 2/2] memcg: dirty pages instrumentation Andrea Righi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100301103836.GC2087@linux \
--to=arighi@develer.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=suleiman@google.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.