Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:28:15PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Yep, blkio has plenty problems and flaws and I don't get how it's related
to vfs layer, dirty set control and non-disk or network backed filesystems.
Any problem can be fixed by introducing new abstract layer, except too many
abstraction levels. Cgroup is pluggable subsystem, blkio has it's own plugins
and it's build on top of io scheduler plugin. All this stuff always have worked
What does that have to do with anything?
with block devices. Now you suggest to handle all filesystems in this stack.
I think binding them to unrealated cgroup is rough leveling violation.
How is blkio unrelated to filesystems mounted on block devices?
You're suggesting a duplicate solution which can't be complete.
blkio controls block devices. not filesystems or superblocks or bdi or pagecache.
It's all about block layer and nothing more. Am I right?
So, you want to link some completely unrelated subsystems like NFS into the block layer?
NFS cannot be controlled only by network throttlers because we
cannot slow down writeback process when it happens, we must slow
down tasks who generates dirty memory.
That's exactly the same problem why blkio doesn't work for async IOs
right now, so if you're interested in the area, please contribute to
fixing that problem.
Plus it's close to impossible to separate several workloads if they
share one NFS sb.
Again, the same problem with blkio. We need separate pressure
channels on bdi for each cgroup.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>