On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:35:13AM -0700, Chad Talbott wrote: >> I'd like to propose a discussion topic: >> >> IO-less Dirty Throttling Considered Harmful... >> > > I see that writeback has extended session at 10.00. I am assuming > IO less throttling will be discussed there. Is it possible to > discuss its effect on block cgroups there? I am not sure enough > time is there because it ties in memory cgroup also. > > Or there is a session at 12.30 "memcg dirty limits and writeback", it > can probably be discussed there too. I just want to make sure that the topic is discussed and I don't want to eat into someone else's time. I'll be sure to bring it up if it's not granted a dedicated session. >> to isolation and cgroup IO schedulers in general. The disk scheduler >> is knocked out of the picture unless it can see the IO generated by >> each group above it. The world of memcg-aware writeback stacked on >> top of block-cgroups is a complicated one. Throttling in >> balance_dirty_pages() will likely be a non-starter for current users >> of group-aware CFQ. > > Can't a single flusher thread keep all the groups busy/full on slow > SATA device. A single flusher thread *could* keep all the groups busy and full, but the current implementation does nothing explicit to make that happen. I'd like to make sure that this case is considered, independent of a particular implementation. Chad -- 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
