Re: [PATCH -mmotm 3/3] memcg: dirty pages instrumentation

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2010-03-02 14:48:56]:

> This is ugly and broken.. I thought you'd agreed to something like:
> 
>  if (mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit(cgroup))
>    use mem_cgroup numbers
>  else
>    use global numbers
> 
> That allows for a 0 dirty limit (which should work and basically makes
> all io synchronous).
> 
> Also, I'd put each of those in a separate function, like:
> 
> unsigned long reclaimable_pages(cgroup)
> {
>   if (mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit(cgroup))
>     return mem_cgroup_page_stat(MEMCG_NR_RECLAIM_PAGES);
>   
>   return global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) + global_page_state(NR_NFS_UNSTABLE);
> }
>

I agree, I should have been more specific about the naming convention,
this is what I meant - along these lines as we do with
zone_nr_lru_pages(), etc.
 
> Which raises another question, you should probably rebase on top of
> Trond's patches, which removes BDI_RECLAIMABLE, suggesting you also
> loose MEMCG_NR_RECLAIM_PAGES in favour of the DIRTY+UNSTABLE split.
> 

-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir

--
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>