Re: [Lsf] [RFC] writeback and cgroup

[Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>]

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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>