Re: i/o bandwidth controller infrastructure

[Andrea Righi]

Eric Rannaud wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > > With this bandwidth controller, a cpu-intensive job which otherwise  does
> > > not care about its IO
> > > performance needs to be pin-point accurate about IO bandwidth  required in
> > > order to not suffer
> > > from cpu-throttling. IMHO, if a cgroup is exceeding its limit for a  given
> > > resource, the throttling
> > > should be done _only_ for that resource.
> > I understand your point of view. It would be nice if we could just
> > "disable" the i/o for a cgroup that exceeds its limit, instead of
> > scheduling some sleep()s, so the tasks running in this cgroup would be
> > able to continue their non-i/o operations as usual.
> >
> > However, how to do if the tasks continue to perform i/o ops under this
> > condition? we could just cache the i/o in memory and at the same time
> > reduce the i/o priority of those tasks' requests, but this would require
> > a lot of memory, more space in the page cache, and probably could lead
> > to potential OOM conditions. A safer approach IMHO is to force the tasks
> > to wait synchronously on each operation that directly or indirectly
> > generates i/o. The last one is the solution implemented by this
> > bandwidth controller.
>
> What about AIO? Is this approach going to make the task sleep as well?
> Would it better to return from aio_write()/_read() with EAGAIN?

Good point. I should check, but it seems sleeps are incorrectly
performed also for AIO requests. I agree the correct behaviour would be
to return EAGAIN instead, as you suggested. I'll look at it if nobody
comes up with a solution.

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/