lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [Lsf] [RFC] writeback and cgroup
    From
    On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> 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

    --
    Thanks,

    Steve
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-04 17:39    [W:0.024 / U:0.120 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site