Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:44:25 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: righi.andrea@gmail.com, Satoshi UCHIDA <s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com>,
       xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vtaras@openvz.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
       agk@sourceware.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
       ngupta@google.com
Subject: Re: Too many I/O controller patches
Message-Id: <20080806114425.c0e9b24f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <1217953218.10907.25.camel@nimitz>
References: <20080804.175126.193692178.ryov@valinux.co.jp>
	<1217870433.20260.101.camel@nimitz>
	<489748E6.5080106@gmail.com>
	<000901c8f6a5$fe64ba30$fb2e2e90$@jp.nec.com>
	<48981D3B.2020701@gmail.com>
	<1217953218.10907.25.camel@nimitz>
Organization: Fujitsu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1787
Lines: 54

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:20:18 -0700
Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 11:28 +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > > Buffered write I/O is also related with cache system.
> > > We must consider this problem as I/O control.
> > 
> > Agree. At least, maybe we should consider if an IO controller could be
> > a valid solution also for these problems.
> 
> Isn't this one of the core points that we keep going back and forth
> over?  ﻿It seems like people are arguing in circles over this:
> 
> Do we:
> 	1. control potential memory usage by throttling I/O
> or
> 	2. Throttle I/O when memory is full
> 
> I might lean toward (1) if we didn't already have a memory controller.
> But, we have one, and it works.  Also, we *already* do (2) in the
> kernel, so it would seem to graft well onto existing mechanisms that we
> have.
> 
> I/O controllers should not worry about memory.  
I agree here ;)

>They're going to have a hard enough time getting the I/O part right. :)
> 
memcg have more problems now ;( 

Only a difficult thing to limit dirty-ratio in memcg is how-to-count dirty
pages. If I/O controller's hook helps, it's good.

My small concern is "What happens if we throttole I/O bandwidth too small
under some memcg." In such cgroup, we may see more OOMs because I/O will
not finish in time.
A system admin have to find some way to avoid this.

But please do I/O control first. Dirty-page control is related but different
layer's problem, I think.

Thanks,
-Kame

> ﻿Or, am I over-simplifying this?
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/