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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx 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