Re: [PATCH] cgroup: limit block I/O bandwidth

[Andrea Righi]

Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Andrea Righi wrote:
>> Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> * Andrea Righi <righiandr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2008-01-23 16:23:59]:
>>>
>>>> Probably tracking who dirtied the pages would be the best approach, but
>>>> we want also to reduce the overhead of this tracking. So, we should find
>>>> a smart way to track which cgroup dirtied the pages and then only when
>>>> the i/o scheduler dispatches the write requests of those pages, account
>>>> the i/o operations to the opportune cgroup. In this way throttling could
>>>> be done probably in __set_page_dirty() as well.
>>>>
>>> I think the OpenVZ controller works that way.
>> Well... looking at the code it seems that OpenVZ doesn't use this
>> strategy, instead performs UBC-based I/O accounting looking at the
> 
> We do track the task (well - the beancounter) who made the page
> dirty and then use this context for async write scheduling.

Interesting... now I see that task_io_account_write() takes a
"struct page *" as argument and the "struct page" has the beancounter
pointer.

> 
>> __set_page_dirty*() for writes and submit_bio() for reads. Then,
>> independently from accounting data, it uses per-UBC i/o priority model
>> that is mapped directly on the CFQ i/o priority model.
> 
> Vasisly Tarasov (out I/O guru ;)) has already prepared an RFC patchset
> for Jens with group scheduler (for sync requests only) and is going to
> send it this or next week.
> 

Very good! I look forward for this patchset.

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