[RFC] [PATCH -mm 0/2] memcg: per cgroup dirty_ratio

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

> > We don't have any motivation of its interface change.
> 
> We are seeing problems where we are generating a lot of dirty memory
> from asynchronous background writes while more important traffic is
> operating with DIRECT_IO. The DIRECT_IO traffic will incur high
> latency spikes as the pdflush hits the background threshold and tries
> to write a lot of dirty buffers at once.
> 
> What we want to do is lower the background threshold low enough so
> that we don't end up writing a lot of data at one time. As systems get
> more and more memory this is and will become difficult. 1% of system
> RAM could tie up a disk.

yup.
sorry, I choosed bad word at my last mail. it caused your confusion.
I only disagreed vm_dirty_KB.

I agreed with fine graind vm_dirty_ratio.

Thanks.