lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] blkiocg async support
* Munihiro Ikeda <m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com> [2010-07-08 22:57:13]:

> These RFC patches are trial to add async (cached) write support on blkio
> controller.
>
> Only test which has been done is to compile, boot, and that write bandwidth
> seems prioritized when pages which were dirtied by two different processes in
> different cgroups are written back to a device simultaneously. I know this
> is the minimum (or less) test but I posted this as RFC because I would like
> to hear your opinions about the design direction in the early stage.
>
> Patches are for 2.6.35-rc4.
>
> This patch series consists of two chunks.
>
> (1) iotrack (patch 01/11 -- 06/11)
>
> This is a functionality to track who dirtied a page, in exact which cgroup a
> process which dirtied a page belongs to. Blkio controller will read the info
> later and prioritize when the page is actually written to a block device.
> This work is originated from Ryo Tsuruta and Hirokazu Takahashi and includes
> Andrea Righi's idea. It was posted as a part of dm-ioband which was one of
> proposals for IO controller.
>

Does this reuse the memcg infrastructure, if so could you please add a
summary of the changes here.

>
> (2) blkio controller modification (07/11 -- 11/11)
>
> The main part of blkio controller async write support.
> Currently async queues are device-wide and async write IOs are always treated
> as root group.
> These patches make async queues per a cfq_group per a device to control them.
> Async write is handled by flush kernel thread. Because queue pointers are
> stored in cfq_io_context, io_context of the thread has to have multiple
> cfq_io_contexts per a device. So these patches make cfq_io_context per an
> io_context per a cfq_group, which means per an io_context per a cgroup per a
> device.
>
>
> This might be a piece of puzzle for complete async write support of blkio
> controller. One of other pieces in my head is page dirtying ratio control.
> I believe Andrea Righi was working on it...how about the situation?
>

Greg posted the last set of patches, we are yet to see another
iteration.

> And also, I'm thinking that async write support is required by bandwidth
> capping policy of blkio controller. Bandwidth capping can be done in upper
> layer than elevator. However I think it should be also done in elevator layer
> in my opinion. Elevator buffers and sort requests. If there is another
> buffering functionality in upper layer, it is doubled buffering and it can be
> harmful for elevator's prediction.
>


--
Three Cheers,
Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-26 08:45    [W:0.240 / U:0.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site