[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120427150217.GK27486@google.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:02:17 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, vgoyal@...hat.com, ctalbott@...gle.com,
rni@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
fengguang.wu@...el.com, hughd@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] blkcg: implement per-blkg request allocation
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:54:01AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > This patch implements per-blkg request_list. Each blkg has its own
> > request_list and any IO allocates its request from the matching blkg
> > making blkcgs completely isolated in terms of request allocation.
>
> So, nr_requests is now actually nr_requests * # of blk cgroups. Is that
> right? Are you at all concerned about the amount of memory that can be
> tied up as the number of cgroups increases?
Yeah, I thought about it and I don't think there's a single good
solution here. The other extreme would be splitting nr_requests by
the number of cgroups but that seems even worse - each cgroup should
be able to hit maximum throughput. Given that a lot of workloads tend
to regulate themselves before hitting nr_requests, I think it's best
to leave it as-is and treat each cgroup as having separate channel for
now. It's a configurable parameter after all.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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