Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] memcg: document cgroup dirty memory interfaces

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-10-20T01:19:53Z

On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:48:21 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:11:09 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:00:58 -0700
> > Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> > > +When use_hierarchy=0, each cgroup has independent dirty memory usage and limits.
> > > +
> > > +When use_hierarchy=1, a parent cgroup increasing its dirty memory usage will
> > > +compare its total_dirty memory (which includes sum of all child cgroup dirty
> > > +memory) to its dirty limits. This keeps a parent from explicitly exceeding its
> > > +dirty limits. However, a child cgroup can increase its dirty usage without
> > > +considering the parent's dirty limits. Thus the parent's total_dirty can exceed
> > > +the parent's dirty limits as a child dirties pages.
> >
> > Hmm. in short, dirty_ratio in use_hierarchy=1 doesn't work as an user expects.
> > Is this a spec. or a current implementation ?
> >
> > I think as following.
> > - add a limitation as "At setting chidlren's dirty_ratio, it must be below parent's.
> > If it exceeds parent's dirty_ratio, EINVAL is returned."
> >
> > Could you modify setting memory.dirty_ratio code ?
> > Then, parent's dirty_ratio will never exceeds its own. (If I understand correctly.)
> >
> > "memory.dirty_limit_in_bytes" will be a bit more complecated, but I think you can.
> >
> I agree.
>
> At the first impression, this limitation seems a bit overkill for me, because
> we allow memory.limit_in_bytes of a child bigger than that of parent now.
> But considering more, the situation is different, because usage_in_bytes never
> exceeds limit_in_bytes.
>

I'd like to consider a patch.
Please mention that "use_hierarchy=1 case depends on implemenation." for now.

Thanks,
-Kame