[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200708140413.12530.phillips@phunq.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 04:13:10 -0700
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Block device throttling [Re: Distributed storage.]
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 01:46, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 06:04:06AM -0700, Daniel Phillips
(phillips@...nq.net) wrote:
> > Perhaps you never worried about the resources that the device
> > mapper mapping function allocates to handle each bio and so did not
> > consider this hole significant. These resources can be
> > significant, as is the case with ddsnap. It is essential to close
> > that window through with the virtual device's queue limit may be
> > violated. Not doing so will allow deadlock.
>
> This is not a bug, this is special kind of calculation - total limit
> is number of physical devices multiplied by theirs limits. It was
> done _on purpose_ to allow different device to have different limits
> (for example in distributed storage project it is possible to have
> both remote and local node in the same device, but local device
> should not have _any_ limit at all, but network one should).
>
> Virtual device essentially has _no_ limit. And that as done on
> purpose.
And it will not solve the deadlock problem in general. (Maybe it works
for your virtual device, but I wonder...) If the virtual device
allocates memory during generic_make_request then the memory needs to
be throttled.
Regards,
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists