Hi Christoph:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 08:46:23AM -0700, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote:
>> But if one of one's goals is to provide some sort of disk isolation based on
>> cgroup parameters, than having at most one stream of write requests
>> effectively neuters the IO scheduler.
>
> If you use any kind of buffered I/O you already fail in that respect.
> Writeback from balance_dirty_page really is just the wort case right now
> with more I/O supposed to be handled by the background threads. So if
> you want to implement isolation properly you need to track the
> originator of the I/O between the copy to the pagecache and actual
> writeback.
Which is indeed part of the patchset I referred to above ("[RFC]
[PATCH 0/6] Provide cgroup isolation for buffered writes",
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/8/332 ).
Thanks,
Curt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
