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 S1760523Ab0J2HyR (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:54:17 -0400
Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:60275 "EHLO
	fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755200Ab0J2HyL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:54:11 -0400
X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:48:35 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Cc: 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>,
        Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
        Ciju Rajan K <ciju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] memcg: check memcg dirty limits in page
 writeback
Message-Id: <20101029164835.06eef3cf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <1288336154-23256-12-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com>
References: <1288336154-23256-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com>
	<1288336154-23256-12-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com>
Organization: FUJITSU Co. 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 Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:09:14 -0700
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> wrote:

> If the current process is in a non-root memcg, then
> balance_dirty_pages() will consider the memcg dirty limits
> as well as the system-wide limits.  This allows different
> cgroups to have distinct dirty limits which trigger direct
> and background writeback at different levels.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>

Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>

Ideally, I think some comments in the code for "why we need double-check system's
dirty limit and memcg's dirty limit" will be appreciated.