On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:39:13AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:00:31 +0100
Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com 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
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:42:44PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com 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
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:42:30AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:03:07 -0500
Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com 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 pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:03:26AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:59:22 +0100
Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com 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
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:52:44AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:27:09 +0100
Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com 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
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:14:11AM +0900, Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
Then, it's not problem that check
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 in current
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 pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu,
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:42:30AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:03:07 -0500
Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com 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 pet...@infradead.org wrote:
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 cgroup dirty
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:24:33AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:14:11 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura nishim...@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:39:13 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
The performance overhead is not so huge in both solutions, but the impact
on
performance is even more reduced using a complicated
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:25 +0100
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:39:13 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
The performance overhead is not so huge in both solutions,
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com 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);
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:25:00PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:14:25 +0100
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:39:13 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
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 writers,
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:03:07 -0500
Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com 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 pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 10:17 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:27:09 +0100
Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com 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
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:59:22 +0100
Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com 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:
root cgroup
$ dd if=/dev/zero
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
Then, it's not problem that check pc-mem_cgroup is root cgroup or not
without spinlock.
==
void
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:14:11 +0900
Daisuke Nishimura nishim...@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:42:44 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:25:00 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com wrote:
Then, it's not
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:00:31 +0100
Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com 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
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:39:13 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki kamezawa.hir...@jp.fujitsu.com 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
* Andrea Righi ari...@develer.com [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,
24 matches
Mail list logo
