[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140423192108.GF22755@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:21:09 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] blkcg: prepare blkcg knobs for default hierarchy
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:00:43PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:58:35PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Oh, sorry, I had misunderstood your question.
> >
> > - Number of IOs serviced will be different at throttling layer and
> > CFQ layer as throttling accounts IO in terms of bios and CFQ
> > accounts in terms of number of requests.
>
> But shouldn't it be possible to determine that from merged count? Or
> we can just expose both bio and request counts at block core layer.
> The point is that there's nothing controller specific about these
> stats.
In general this idea makes sense. Exporting both request and bio will
solve the problem of io accounting. Also that should allow us to
get rid of blkio.io_merged.
What about sync/async differentiation? Throttling layer seems to flag a request sync
only if bio->bi_rw flag has REQ_SYNC set. While CFQ seems to consider
request sync if bio is either read or bio->bi_rw has REQ_SYNC flag set.
So we need to make this definition uniform. Or I am wondering do we
really need to export sync/async data. (Again put in by google folks).
How useful this info really is.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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