Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754608Ab2BQWvc (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:51:32 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2687 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753241Ab2BQWvb (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:51:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:51:26 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal To: Tejun Heo Cc: Kent Overstreet , axboe@kernel.dk, ctalbott@google.com, rni@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] block: implement bio_associate_current() Message-ID: <20120217225125.GK26620@redhat.com> References: <1329431878-28300-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1329431878-28300-8-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20120217011907.GA15073@google.com> <20120217221406.GJ29414@google.com> <20120217223420.GJ26620@redhat.com> <20120217224103.GN29414@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120217224103.GN29414@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1388 Lines: 33 On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:41:03PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:34:20PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > Nope. We make note of task migration and drop cic->cfqq association > > and establish a new association where new cfqq is part of new cgroup. > > (ioc_cgroup_changed()). > > Yeah, that's the CHANGED bit thing. I probably got confused with > blk-throttle losing blkcg while testing. Anyways, it would be great > if we can either remove that altogether. e.g. compare the cached > blkg->blkcg and see if it has changed from cfq. Or add a callback and > do the shootdown synchronously at least. I think dropping it lazily has advantage as once the cic->cfqq association is set, we don't worry about cgroups at all. Otherwise on every IO, we will end up comparing submitting tasks's cgroup and cic/cfqq's cgroup. Also this will create problems, if two threads sharing io context are in two different cgroups. We will frequently end up changing the association. So comparing probably is not a very good idea. Doing something synchronously might be better if you don't like CGROUP_CHANGED bit in ioc. Thanks Vivek -- 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/