Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752035AbYHLFfu (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:35:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751195AbYHLFf1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:35:27 -0400 Received: from serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp ([222.151.198.100]:41059 "EHLO serv2.oss.ntt.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750996AbYHLFfZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:35:25 -0400 Subject: Re: RFC: I/O bandwidth controller From: Fernando Luis =?ISO-8859-1?Q?V=E1zquez?= Cao To: Hirokazu Takahashi Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, agk@sourceware.org, dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ngupta@google.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20080808.203944.29203232.taka@valinux.co.jp> References: <1217985189.3154.57.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> <4899D464.1070506@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1218078075.3803.149.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> <20080808.203944.29203232.taka@valinux.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: NTT Open Source Software Center Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:35:23 +0900 Message-Id: <1218519323.3964.0.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1470 Lines: 30 On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 20:39 +0900, Hirokazu Takahashi wrote: > Hi, > > > > Would you like to split up IO into read and write IO. We know that read can be > > > very latency sensitive when compared to writes. Should we consider them > > > separately in the RFC? > > Oops, I somehow ended up leaving your first question unanswered. Sorry. > > > > I do not think we should consider them separately, as long as there is a > > proper IO tracking infrastructure in place. As you mentioned, reads can > > be very latecy sensitive, but the read case could be treated as an > > special case IO controller/IO tracking subsystem. There certainly are > > optimization opportunities. For example, in the synchronous I/O patch ww > > could mark bios with the iocontext of the current task, because it will > > happen to be originator of that IO. By effectively caching the ownership > > information in the bio we can avoid all the accesses to struct page, > > page_cgroup, etc, and reads would definitively benefit from that. > > FYI, we should also take special care of pages being reclaimed, the free > memory of the cgroup these pages belong to may be really low. > Dm-ioband is doing this. Thank you for the heads-up. - Fernando -- 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/