On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:38:41AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > >
> > > bdi_thres ~= per_memory_cgroup_dirty * bdi_fraction
> > >
> > > But bdi_nr_reclaimable and bdi_nr_writeback stats are still global.
> > >
> > Why bdi_thresh of ROOT cgroup doesn't depend on global number ?
> >
>
> I think
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:14:11AM +0900, Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > Then, it's not problem that check pc->mem_cgroup is root cgroup or not
> > > without spinl
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:52:44AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:27:09 +0100
> Andrea Righi wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:03:07AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> > > I am still setting up the system to test whether we see any speedup in
> > > writeout of large
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:03:26AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:59:22 +0100
> Andrea Righi wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:07:53PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:00:31AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
>
> > mmmh.. strange, on my side I
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:42:30AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:03:07 -0500
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:25:00PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:25 +0100
> > > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 2010-0
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:07:53PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:00:31AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given
> > time.
> >
> > Per cgroup dirty limit is like fixing the max amount of dirty (hard to
> > r
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:03:07AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:25:00PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:25 +0100
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:3
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:42:44PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > Then, it's not problem that check pc->mem_cgroup is root cgroup or not
> > without spinlock.
> > ==
> > void mem_cgroup_update_stat(struct page *page, int idx, boo
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:39:13AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:00:31 +0100
> Andrea Righi wrote:
>
> > Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given
> > time.
> >
> > Per cgroup dirty limit is like fixing the max amount of dirty (hard to
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:24:33AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:14:11 +0900
> Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
> > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > Then, it's n
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:59:22AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:07:53PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:00:31AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > > Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given
> > > time.
> > >
> > > Per
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:42:30AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:03:07 -0500
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:25:00PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:25 +0100
> > > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 2010-0
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:27:09AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:03:07AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:25:00PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:25 +0100
> > > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 2010-03-11
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:14:11 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > Then, it's not problem that check pc->mem_cgroup is root cgroup or not
> > > without spinlock.
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > Then, it's not problem that check pc->mem_cgroup is root cgroup or not
> > without spinlock.
> > ==
> > void mem_cgroup_update_stat(struct page *page, int idx, bool ch
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:59:22 +0100
Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:07:53PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:00:31AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> mmmh.. strange, on my side I get something as expected:
>
>
> $ dd if=/dev/zero of=test bs=1M count=500
> 50
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:27:09 +0100
Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:03:07AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > I am still setting up the system to test whether we see any speedup in
> > writeout of large files with-in a memory cgroup with small memory limits.
> > I am assuming that we
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:03:07 -0500
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:25:00PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:25 +0100
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:39:13
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:00:31AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given time.
>
> Per cgroup dirty limit is like fixing the max amount of dirty (hard to
> reclaim)
> page cache used by any cgroup. So, in case of multiple cgroup writ
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:25:00PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:25 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:39:13 +0900
> > > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > > The performance over
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> Then, it's not problem that check pc->mem_cgroup is root cgroup or not
> without spinlock.
> ==
> void mem_cgroup_update_stat(struct page *page, int idx, bool charge)
> {
> pc = lookup_page_cgroup(page);
> if (unlikely(!pc)
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:25 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:39:13 +0900
> > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > The performance overhead is not so huge in both solutions, but the
> > > > impact on
> > > > perform
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:39:13 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > The performance overhead is not so huge in both solutions, but the impact
> > > on
> > > performance is even more reduced using a complicated solution...
> > >
> > >
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:39:13 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > The performance overhead is not so huge in both solutions, but the impact on
> > performance is even more reduced using a complicated solution...
> >
> > Maybe we can go ahead with the simplest implementation for now and start to
> >
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:00:31 +0100
Andrea Righi wrote:
> Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given time.
>
> Per cgroup dirty limit is like fixing the max amount of dirty (hard to
> reclaim)
> page cache used by any cgroup. So, in case of multiple cgroup writers,
* Andrea Righi [2010-03-10 00:00:31]:
> Control the maximum amount of dirty pages a cgroup can have at any given time.
>
> Per cgroup dirty limit is like fixing the max amount of dirty (hard to
> reclaim)
> page cache used by any cgroup. So, in case of multiple cgroup writers, they
> will not b
26 matches
Mail list logo
