Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:10:08 +0100
From:   Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] cgroup: fsio throttle controller
Message-ID: <20190118111008.GA25335@xps-13>
References: <20190118103127.325-1-righi.andrea@gmail.com>
 <E5872191-EE96-442E-B668-DD148157E665@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E5872191-EE96-442E-B668-DD148157E665@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 12:04:17PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> 
> 
> > Il giorno 18 gen 2019, alle ore 11:31, Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > 
> > This is a redesign of my old cgroup-io-throttle controller:
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/330531/
> > 
> > I'm resuming this old patch to point out a problem that I think is still
> > not solved completely.
> > 
> > = Problem =
> > 
> > The io.max controller works really well at limiting synchronous I/O
> > (READs), but a lot of I/O requests are initiated outside the context of
> > the process that is ultimately responsible for its creation (e.g.,
> > WRITEs).
> > 
> > Throttling at the block layer in some cases is too late and we may end
> > up slowing down processes that are not responsible for the I/O that
> > is being processed at that level.
> > 
> > = Proposed solution =
> > 
> > The main idea of this controller is to split I/O measurement and I/O
> > throttling: I/O is measured at the block layer for READS, at page cache
> > (dirty pages) for WRITEs, and processes are limited while they're
> > generating I/O at the VFS level, based on the measured I/O.
> > 
> 
> Hi Andrea,
> what the about the case where two processes are dirtying the same
> pages?  Which will be charged?
> 
> Thanks,
> Paolo

Hi Paolo,

in this case only the first one will be charged for the I/O activity
(the one that changes a page from clean to dirty). This is probably not
totally fair in some cases, but I think it's a good compromise, at the
end rewriting the same page over and over while it's already dirty
doesn't actually generate I/O activity, until the page is flushed back
to disk.

Obviously I'm open to other better ideas and suggestions.

Thanks!
-Andrea