On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:44:26PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, again. A bit of addition. > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:25:37PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > ... > > Overall design > > -------------- > > What's going on in this patchset is fairly straight forward. The main > thing which is happening is that a bdi is being split into multiple > per-cgroup pieces. Each split bdi, represented by bdi_writeback, > behaves mostly identically with how bdi behaved before. I like the overall direction you've taken, Tejun, but I have a couple of questions... > Complications mostly arise from filesystems and inodes having to deal > with multiple split bdi's instead of one, but those are mostly > straight-forward 1:N mapping issues. It does get tedious here and > there but doesn't complicate the overall picture. Some filesystems don't track metadata-dirty inode state in the bdi lists, and instead track that in their own lists (usually deep inside the journalling subsystem). i.e. I_DIRTY_PAGES are the only dirty state that is tracked in the VFS. i.e. inode metadata writeback will still be considered global, but pages won't be. Hence you might get pages written back quickly, but the inodes are going to remain dirty and unreclaimable until the filesystem flushes some time in the future after the journal is committed and the inode written... There has also been talk of allowing filesystems to directly track dirty page state as well - the discussion came out of the way tux3 was tracking and committing delta changes to file data. Now that hasn't gone anywhere, but I'm wondering what impact this patch set would have on such proposals? Similarly, I'm concerned about additional overhead in the writeback path - we can easily drive the flusher thread to be CPU bound on IO subsystems that have decent bandwidth (low GB/s), so adding more overhead to every page we have to flush is going to reduce performance on these systems. Do you have any idea what impact just enabling the memcg/blkcg tracking has on writeback performance and CPU consumption? A further complication for data writeback is that some filesystems do their own adjacent page write clustering own inside their own ->writepages/->writepage implementations. Both ext4 and XFS do this, and it makes no sense from a system and filesystem performance perspective to turn sequential ranges of dirty pages into much slower, semi-random IO just because the pages belong to different memcgs. It's not a good idea to compromise bulk writeback throughput under memory pressure just because a different memcgs write to the same files, so what is going to be the impact of filesystems ignoring memcg ownership during writeback clustering? Finally, distros are going to ship with this always enabled, so what is the overall increase in the size of the struct inode on a 64 bit system with it enabled? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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>