From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Heffner Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] memcg: add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty limits Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:01:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4D7F7121.5040009@librato.com> References: <1299869011-26152-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <1299869011-26152-7-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 To: Greg Thelen Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1299869011-26152-7-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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, 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org