[Devel] Re: [PATCH 08/10] memcg: add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty limits

[Greg Thelen]

Andrea Righi <arighi at develer.com> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 12:33:15AM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
>> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Sun,  3 Oct 2010 23:58:03 -0700
>> > Greg Thelen <gthelen at google.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Add cgroupfs interface to memcg dirty page limits:
>> >>   Direct write-out is controlled with:
>> >>   - memory.dirty_ratio
>> >>   - memory.dirty_bytes
>> >> 
>> >>   Background write-out is controlled with:
>> >>   - memory.dirty_background_ratio
>> >>   - memory.dirty_background_bytes
>> >> 
>> >> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi at develer.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen at google.com>
>> >
>> > Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu at jp.fujitsu.com>
>> >
>> > a question below.
>> >
>> >
>> >> ---
>> >>  mm/memcontrol.c |   89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>  1 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> >> 
>> >> diff --git a/mm/memcontrol.c b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> >> index 6ec2625..2d45a0a 100644
>> >> --- a/mm/memcontrol.c
>> >> +++ b/mm/memcontrol.c
>> >> @@ -100,6 +100,13 @@ enum mem_cgroup_stat_index {
>> >>  	MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS,
>> >>  };
>> >>  
>> >> +enum {
>> >> +	MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO,
>> >> +	MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES,
>> >> +	MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO,
>> >> +	MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES,
>> >> +};
>> >> +
>> >>  struct mem_cgroup_stat_cpu {
>> >>  	s64 count[MEM_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS];
>> >>  };
>> >> @@ -4292,6 +4299,64 @@ static int mem_cgroup_oom_control_write(struct cgroup *cgrp,
>> >>  	return 0;
>> >>  }
>> >>  
>> >> +static u64 mem_cgroup_dirty_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
>> >> +{
>> >> +	struct mem_cgroup *mem = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
>> >> +	bool root;
>> >> +
>> >> +	root = mem_cgroup_is_root(mem);
>> >> +
>> >> +	switch (cft->private) {
>> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO:
>> >> +		return root ? vm_dirty_ratio : mem->dirty_param.dirty_ratio;
>> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES:
>> >> +		return root ? vm_dirty_bytes : mem->dirty_param.dirty_bytes;
>> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO:
>> >> +		return root ? dirty_background_ratio :
>> >> +			mem->dirty_param.dirty_background_ratio;
>> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES:
>> >> +		return root ? dirty_background_bytes :
>> >> +			mem->dirty_param.dirty_background_bytes;
>> >> +	default:
>> >> +		BUG();
>> >> +	}
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> +static int
>> >> +mem_cgroup_dirty_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft, u64 val)
>> >> +{
>> >> +	struct mem_cgroup *memcg = mem_cgroup_from_cont(cgrp);
>> >> +	int type = cft->private;
>> >> +
>> >> +	if (cgrp->parent == NULL)
>> >> +		return -EINVAL;
>> >> +	if ((type == MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO ||
>> >> +	     type == MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO) && val > 100)
>> >> +		return -EINVAL;
>> >> +	switch (type) {
>> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_RATIO:
>> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_ratio = val;
>> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_bytes = 0;
>> >> +		break;
>> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BYTES:
>> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_bytes = val;
>> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_ratio  = 0;
>> >> +		break;
>> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_RATIO:
>> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_ratio = val;
>> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_bytes = 0;
>> >> +		break;
>> >> +	case MEM_CGROUP_DIRTY_BACKGROUND_BYTES:
>> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_bytes = val;
>> >> +		memcg->dirty_param.dirty_background_ratio = 0;
>> >> +		break;
>> >
>> >
>> > Curious....is this same behavior as vm_dirty_ratio ?
>> 
>> I think this is same behavior as vm_dirty_ratio.  When vm_dirty_ratio is
>> changed then dirty_ratio_handler() will set vm_dirty_bytes=0.  When
>> vm_dirty_bytes is written dirty_bytes_handler() will set
>> vm_dirty_ratio=0.  So I think that the per-memcg dirty memory parameters
>> mimic the behavior of vm_dirty_ratio, vm_dirty_bytes and the other
>> global dirty parameters.
>> 
>> Am I missing your question?
>
> mmh... looking at the code it seems the same behaviour, but in
> Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt we say a different thing (i.e., for
> dirty_bytes):
>
> "If dirty_bytes is written, dirty_ratio becomes a function of its value
> (dirty_bytes / the amount of dirtyable system memory)."
>
> However, in dirty_bytes_handler()/dirty_ratio_handler() we actually set
> the counterpart value as 0.
>
> I think we should clarify the documentation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi at develer.com>

Reviewed-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen at google.com>

This documentation change is general cleanup that is independent of the
memcg patch series shown on the subject.

> ---
>  Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt |   12 ++++++++----
>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt b/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
> index b606c2c..30289fa 100644
> --- a/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/sysctl/vm.txt
> @@ -80,8 +80,10 @@ dirty_background_bytes
>  Contains the amount of dirty memory at which the pdflush background writeback
>  daemon will start writeback.
>  
> -If dirty_background_bytes is written, dirty_background_ratio becomes a function
> -of its value (dirty_background_bytes / the amount of dirtyable system memory).
> +Note: dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart of dirty_background_ratio. Only
> +one of them may be specified at a time. When one sysctl is written it is
> +immediately taken into account to evaluate the dirty memory limits and the
> +other appears as 0 when read.
>  
>  ==============================================================
>  
> @@ -97,8 +99,10 @@ dirty_bytes
>  Contains the amount of dirty memory at which a process generating disk writes
>  will itself start writeback.
>  
> -If dirty_bytes is written, dirty_ratio becomes a function of its value
> -(dirty_bytes / the amount of dirtyable system memory).
> +Note: dirty_bytes is the counterpart of dirty_ratio. Only one of them may be
> +specified at a time. When one sysctl is written it is immediately taken into
> +account to evaluate the dirty memory limits and the other appears as 0 when
> +read.
>  
>  Note: the minimum value allowed for dirty_bytes is two pages (in bytes); any
>  value lower than this limit will be ignored and the old configuration will be
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers