[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130409195259.GL6186@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 12:52:59 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, dm-crypt@...ut.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Christian Schmidt <schmidt@...add.de>
Subject: Re: dm-crypt parallelization patches
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:42:16PM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> If I drop ifdefs, it doesn't compile (because other cgroup stuff it
> missing).
>
> So I enabled bio cgroups.
>
> bio_associate_current can't be used, because by the time we allocate the
> outgoing write bio, we are no longer in the process that submitted the
> original bio.
Oh, I suppose it'd need some massaging to selectively turn off the
cgroup part.
> Anyway, I tried to reproduce in dm-crypt what bio_associate_current does -
and we probably need to change that to bio_associate_task().
> in the submitting process I record "ioc" and "css" fields in "dm_crypt_io"
> structure and set these fields on all outgoing bios. It has no effect on
> performance, it is as bad as if I hadn't done it.
A good way to verify that the tagging is correct would be configuring
io limits in block cgroup and see whether the limits are correctly
applied when going through dm-crypt (please test with direct-io or
reads, writeback is horribly broken, sorry).working correctly, maybe
plugging is the overriding factor?
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