Re: [PATCH -mmotm 3/3] memcg: dirty pages instrumentation

[Balbir Singh]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-03-02 14:48:56]:

> This is ugly and broken.. I thought you'd agreed to something like:
> 
>  if (mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit(cgroup))
>    use mem_cgroup numbers
>  else
>    use global numbers
> 
> That allows for a 0 dirty limit (which should work and basically makes
> all io synchronous).
> 
> Also, I'd put each of those in a separate function, like:
> 
> unsigned long reclaimable_pages(cgroup)
> {
>   if (mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit(cgroup))
>     return mem_cgroup_page_stat(MEMCG_NR_RECLAIM_PAGES);
>   
>   return global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) + global_page_state(NR_NFS_UNSTABLE);
> }
>

I agree, I should have been more specific about the naming convention,
this is what I meant - along these lines as we do with
zone_nr_lru_pages(), etc.
 
> Which raises another question, you should probably rebase on top of
> Trond's patches, which removes BDI_RECLAIMABLE, suggesting you also
> loose MEMCG_NR_RECLAIM_PAGES in favour of the DIRTY+UNSTABLE split.
> 

-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/