Hello,

On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 12:49:57PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:

Well, unless there is some specific mapping for the device, we could just
fall back to attributing everything to the root cgroup. We would still
account dirty pages in memcg, throttle writers in memcg when there are too
many dirty pages, issue writeback for inodes in memcg with enough dirty
pages etc. Just all IO from different memcgs would be equal so no
separation would be there. But it would still seem better that just
ignoring the split of dirty pages among memcgs as we do now... Thoughts?

Sure, if you mark a bdi as capable of supporing cgroup writeback
without enforcing any IO isolation, the above would be what's
happening.  I'm not convinced this would be something actually useful
tho.  Sure, it changes the behavior but is still gonna be a crapshoot.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>