[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090421191401.GF15541@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:14:01 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
agk@...rceware.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
baramsori72@...il.com, Carl Henrik Lunde <chlunde@...g.uio.no>,
dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>,
eric.rannaud@...il.com, fernando@....ntt.co.jp,
Hirokazu Takahashi <taka@...inux.co.jp>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, matt@...ehost.com,
dradford@...ehost.com, ngupta@...gle.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com,
roberto@...it.it, Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>,
Satoshi UCHIDA <s-uchida@...jp.nec.com>,
subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] ext3: do not throttle metadata and journal IO
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:44:29PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> That would be true in general, but only the process writing to the
> file will dirty it. So dirty already accounts for the read/write
> split. I'd assume that the cost is only for the dirty page, since we
> do IO only on write in this case, unless I am missing something very
> obvious.
Maybe I'm missing something, but the (in development) patches I saw
seemed to use the existing infrastructure designed for RSS cost
tracking (which is also not yet in mainline, unless I'm mistaken ---
but I didn't see page_get_page_cgroup() in the mainline tree yet).
Right? So if process A in cgroup A reads touches the file first by
reading from it, then the pages read by process A will be assigned as
being "owned" by cgroup A. Then when the patch described at
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/9/245
... tries to charge a write done by process B in cgroup B, the code
will call page_get_page_cgroup(), see that it is "owned" by cgroup A,
and charge the dirty page to cgroup A. If process A and all of the
other processes in cgroup A only access this file read-only, and
process B is updating this file very heavily --- and it is a large
file --- then cgroup B will get a completely free pass as far as
dirtying pages to this file, since it will be all charged 100% to
cgroup A, incorrectly.
So what am I missing?
- Ted
--
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