lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation
    On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:56:46 -0400 Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:

    > +Currently "current" task
    > +is used to determine the cgroup (hence io group) of the request. Down the
    > +line we need to make use of bio-cgroup patches to map delayed writes to
    > +right group.

    You handled this problem pretty neatly!

    It's always been a BIG problem for all the io-controlling schemes, and
    most of them seem to have "handled" it in the above way :(

    But for many workloads, writeback is the majority of the IO and it has
    always been the form of IO which has caused us the worst contention and
    latency problems. So I don't think that we can proceed with _anything_
    until we at least have a convincing plan here.




    Also.. there are so many IO controller implementations that I've lost
    track of who is doing what. I do have one private report here that
    Andreas's controller "is incredibly productive for us and has allowed
    us to put twice as many users per server with faster times for all
    users". Which is pretty stunning, although it should be viewed as a
    condemnation of the current code, I'm afraid.

    So my question is: what is the definitive list of
    proposed-io-controller-implementations and how do I cunningly get all
    you guys to check each others homework? :)


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-12 08:23    [W:0.022 / U:89.988 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site