From: Andrea Righi <righiandr@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: Naveen Gupta <ngupta@google.com>, Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: limit block I/O bandwidth
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:41:54 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47936BC1.9060805@users.sourceforge.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080120143239.GS6258@kernel.dk>
Jens Axboe wrote:
> Your approach is totally flawed, imho. For instance, you don't want a
> process to be able to dirty memory at foo mb/sec but only actually
> write them out at bar mb/sec.
Right. Actually my problem here is that the processes that write out
blocks are different respect to the processes that write bytes in
memory, and I would be able to add limits on those processes that are
dirtying memory.
> The noop-iosched changes are also very buggy. The queue back pointer
> breaks reference counting and the task pointer storage assumes the task
> will also always be around. That's of course not the case.
Yes, this really need a lot of fixes. I simply posted the patch to know
if such approach (in general) could have sense or not.
> IOW, you are doing this at the wrong level.
>
> What problem are you trying to solve?
Limiting block I/O bandwidth for tasks that belong to a generic cgroup,
in order to provide a sort of a QoS on block I/O.
Anyway, I'm quite new in the wonderful land of the I/O scheduling, so
any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-20 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-18 22:39 Naveen Gupta
2008-01-19 11:17 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-20 13:45 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-20 14:32 ` Jens Axboe
2008-01-20 14:58 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-20 15:41 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2008-01-20 16:06 ` Jens Axboe
2008-01-20 23:59 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-22 19:02 ` Naveen Gupta
2008-01-22 23:11 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-23 1:17 ` Naveen Gupta
2008-01-23 15:23 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-23 15:38 ` Balbir Singh
2008-01-23 20:55 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-24 9:05 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-01-24 13:48 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-24 13:50 ` Balbir Singh
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-01-18 11:41 Andrea Righi
2008-01-18 12:36 ` Dhaval Giani
2008-01-18 12:41 ` Paul Menage
2008-01-18 13:02 ` Andrea Righi
2008-01-18 15:50 ` Andrea Righi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47936BC1.9060805@users.sourceforge.net \
--to=righiandr@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=ngupta@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome