[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140423192707.GD4163@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:27:07 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
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
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:21:09PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, that'd make more sense, I think. IO submitted vs. actually
executed after merging. Pretty clear definition.
> 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.
Heh, I think we'd need to unify those no matter what. The subtle
difference is extremely confusing.
> 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.
Hmmmm... yeah, maybe that'd be the best way to go about it.
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