From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755970Ab0JTBIz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:08:55 -0400
Received: from TYO201.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.193]:41107 "EHLO
	tyo201.gate.nec.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753507Ab0JTBIy (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:08:54 -0400
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:48:21 +0900
From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        containers@lists.osdl.org, Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>,
        Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
        Ciju Rajan K <ciju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] memcg: document cgroup dirty memory interfaces
Message-Id: <20101020094821.75c70fe3.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20101020091109.ccd7b39a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <1287448784-25684-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com>
	<1287448784-25684-3-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com>
	<20101019172744.45e0a8dc.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
	<xr93lj5t5245.fsf@ninji.mtv.corp.google.com>
	<20101020091109.ccd7b39a.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Organization: NEC Soft, Ltd.
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.3 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.


Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.