[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Lsf] [RFC] writeback and cgroup
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Vivek Goyal <> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 11:36:55AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hi Tejun,
> Thanks for the RFC and looking into this issue. Few thoughts inline.
> [..]
>> IIUC, without cgroup, the current writeback code works more or less
>> like this.  Throwing in cgroup doesn't really change the fundamental
>> design.  Instead of a single pipe going down, we just have multiple
>> pipes to the same device, each of which should be treated separately.
>> Of course, a spinning disk can't be divided that easily and their
>> performance characteristics will be inter-dependent, but the place to
>> solve that problem is where the problem is, the block layer.
> How do you take care of thorottling IO to NFS case in this model? Current
> throttling logic is tied to block device and in case of NFS, there is no
> block device.

Similarly smb2 gets congestion info (number of "credits") returned from
the server on every response - but not sure why congestion
control is tied to the block device when this would create
problems for network file systems


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-04 17:39    [W:0.051 / U:0.496 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site