On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 08:34:05AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: [..] > + weight leaf_weight > + root : 125 125 > + A : 500 750 > + B : 250 500 > + AA : 500 500 > + AB : 1000 500 > + > +root never has a parent making its weight is meaningless. For backward > +compatibility, weight is always kept in sync with leaf_weight. B, AA > +and AB have no child and thus its tasks have no children cgroup to > +compete with. They always get 100% of what the cgroup won at the > +parent level. Considering only the weights which matter, the hierarchy > +looks like the following. > + > + root > + / | \ > + A B leaf > + 500 250 125 > + / | \ > + AA AB leaf > + 500 1000 750 > + > +If all cgroups have active IOs and competing with each other, disk > +time will be distributed like the following. > + > +Distribution below root. The total active weight at this level is > +A:500 + B:250 + C:125 = 875. > + > + root-leaf : 125 / 875 =~ 14% > + A : 500 / 875 =~ 57% > + B(-leaf) : 250 / 875 =~ 28% > + > +A has children and further distributes its 57% among the children and > +the implicit leaf node. The total active weight at this level is > +AA:500 + AB:1000 + A-leaf:750 = 2250. > + > + A-leaf : ( 750 / 2250) * A =~ 19% > + AA(-leaf) : ( 500 / 2250) * A =~ 12% > + AB(-leaf) : (1000 / 2250) * A =~ 25% Hi Tejun, What does (-leaf) is supposed to signify? I can understand that A-leaf tells the share of A's tasks which are effectively in A-leaf group. Will just plain AA and AB be more clear? Rest looks good to me. Thanks for updating the blkio-controoler.txt too. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
