Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752902AbZDWAH2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:07:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751240AbZDWAHO (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:07:14 -0400 Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:41519 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750966AbZDWAHM (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:07:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:05:35 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki To: Andrea Righi Cc: randy.dunlap@oracle.com, Carl Henrik Lunde , Jens Axboe , eric.rannaud@gmail.com, Balbir Singh , fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, dradford@bluehost.com, Gui@smtp1.linux-foundation.org, agk@sourceware.org, subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Paul Menage , Theodore Tso , akpm@linux-foundation.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com, matt@bluehost.com, roberto@unbit.it, ngupta@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] ext3: do not throttle metadata and journal IO Message-Id: <20090423090535.ec419269.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20090422102239.GA1935@linux> References: <20090421140631.GF19186@mit.edu> <20090421143130.GA22626@linux> <20090421163537.GI19186@mit.edu> <20090421172317.GM19637@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090421174620.GD15541@mit.edu> <20090421181429.GO19637@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20090421191401.GF15541@mit.edu> <20090421204905.GA5573@linux> <20090422093349.1ee9ae82.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090422102153.9aec17b9.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20090422102239.GA1935@linux> Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3121 Lines: 84 On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:22:41 +0200 Andrea Righi wrote: > Actually I was proposing something quite similar, if I've understood > well. Just add a hook in balance_dirty_pages() to throttle tasks in > cgroups that exhausted their IO BW. > > The way to do so will be similar to the per-bdi write throttling, taking > in account the IO requests previously submitted per cgroup, the pages > dirtied per cgroup (considering that are not necessarily dirtied by the > owner of the page) and apply something like congestion_wait() to > throttle the tasks in the cgroups that exceeded the BW limit. > > Maybe we can just introduce cgroup_dirty_limit() simply replicating what > we're doing for task_dirty_limit(), but using per cgroup statistics of > course. > > I can change the io-throttle controller to do so. This feature should be > valid also for the proportional BW approach. > > BTW Vivek's proposal to also dispatch IO requests according to cgroup > proportional BW limits can be still valid and it is worth to be tested > IMHO. But we must also find a way to say to the right cgroup: hey! stop > to waste the memory with dirty pages, because you've directly or > indirectly generated too much IO in the system and I'm throttling and/or > not scheduling your IO requests. > > Objections? > No objections. plz let me know my following understanding is right. 1. dirty_ratio should be supported per cgroup. - Memory cgroup should support dirty_ratio or dirty_ratio cgroup should be implemented. For doing this, we can make use of page_cgroup. One good point of dirty-ratio cgroup is that dirty-ratio accounting is done against a cgroup which made pages dirty not against a owner of the page. But if dirty_ratio cgroup is completely independent from mem_cgroup, it cannot be a help for memory reclaiming. Then, - memcg itself should have dirty_ratio check. - like bdi/task_dirty_limit(), a cgroup (which is not memcg) can be used another filter for dirty_ratio. 2. dirty_ratio is not I/O BW control. 3. I/O BW(limit) control cgroup should be implemented and it should be exsiting in I/O scheduling layer or somewhere around. But it's not easy. 4. To track bufferred I/O, we have to add "tag" to pages which tell us who generated the I/O. Now it's called blockio-cgroup and implementation details are still under discussion. So, current status is. A. memcg should support dirty_ratio for its own memory reclaim. in plan. B. another cgroup can be implemnted to support cgroup_dirty_limit(). But relationship with "A" should be discussed. no plan yet. C. I/O cgroup and bufferred I/O tracking system. Now under patch review. And this I/O throttle is mainly for "C" discussion. Right ? -Kame Regards, -Kame -- 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/