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, 8 Mar 2019 18:32:15 +0100
From:   Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>
To:     Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] blkcg: sync() isolation
Message-ID: <20190308173215.GA10148@xps-13>
References: <20190307180834.22008-1-andrea.righi@canonical.com>
 <20190308172219.clcu6ehjav6y2hxi@MacBook-Pro-91.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190308172219.clcu6ehjav6y2hxi@MacBook-Pro-91.local>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 12:22:20PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 07:08:31PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > = Problem =
> > 
> > When sync() is executed from a high-priority cgroup, the process is forced to
> > wait the completion of the entire outstanding writeback I/O, even the I/O that
> > was originally generated by low-priority cgroups potentially.
> > 
> > This may cause massive latencies to random processes (even those running in the
> > root cgroup) that shouldn't be I/O-throttled at all, similarly to a classic
> > priority inversion problem.
> > 
> > This topic has been previously discussed here:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10804489/
> > 
> 
> Sorry to move the goal posts on you again Andrea, but Tejun and I talked about
> this some more offline.
> 
> We don't want cgroup to become the arbiter of correctness/behavior here.  We
> just want it to be isolating things.
> 
> For you that means you can drop the per-cgroup flag stuff, and only do the
> priority boosting for multiple sync(2) waiters.  That is a real priority
> inversion that needs to be fixed.  io.latency and io.max are capable of noticing
> that a low priority group is going above their configured limits and putting
> pressure elsewhere accordingly.

Alright, so IIUC that means we just need patch 1/3 for now (with the
per-bdi lock instead of the global lock). If that's the case I'll focus
at that patch then.

> 
> Tejun said he'd rather see the sync(2) isolation be done at the namespace level.
> That way if you have fs namespacing you are already isolated to your namespace.
> If you feel like tackling that then hooray, but that's a separate dragon to slay
> so don't feel like you have to right now.

Makes sense. I can take a look and see what I can do after posting the
new patch with the priority inversion fix only.

> 
> This way we keep cgroup doing its job, controlling resources.  Then we allow
> namespacing to do its thing, isolating resources.  Thanks,
> 
> Josef

Looks like a good plan to me. Thanks for the update.

-Andrea