From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754663Ab2DTVdK (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:33:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f52.google.com ([209.85.210.52]:48928 "EHLO mail-pz0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753088Ab2DTVdG (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:33:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:33:01 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Fengguang Wu , Jan Kara , Jens Axboe , linux-mm@kvack.org, sjayaraman@suse.com, andrea@betterlinux.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, lizefan@huawei.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, ctalbott@google.com, rni@google.com, lsf@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [RFC] writeback and cgroup Message-ID: <20120420213301.GA29134@google.com> References: <20120403183655.GA23106@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <20120404175124.GA8931@localhost> <20120404193355.GD29686@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <20120406095934.GA10465@localhost> <20120417223854.GG19975@google.com> <20120419142343.GA12684@localhost> <20120419183118.GM10216@redhat.com> <20120420124518.GA7133@localhost> <20120420192930.GR22419@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120420192930.GR22419@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 03:29:30PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > I am personally is not too excited about the case of putting async IO > in separate groups due to the reason that async IO of one group will > start impacting latencies of sync IO of another group and in practice > it might not be desirable. But there are others who have use cases for > separate async IO queue. So as long as switch is there to change the > behavior, I am not too worried. Why not just fix cfq so that it prefers groups w/ sync IOs? -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC] writeback and cgroup Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:33:01 -0700 Message-ID: <20120420213301.GA29134@google.com> References: <20120403183655.GA23106@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <20120404175124.GA8931@localhost> <20120404193355.GD29686@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <20120406095934.GA10465@localhost> <20120417223854.GG19975@google.com> <20120419142343.GA12684@localhost> <20120419183118.GM10216@redhat.com> <20120420124518.GA7133@localhost> <20120420192930.GR22419@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Fengguang Wu , Jan Kara , Jens Axboe , linux-mm@kvack.org, sjayaraman@suse.com, andrea@betterlinux.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, lizefan@huawei.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, ctalbott@google.com, rni@google.com, lsf@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Vivek Goyal Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120420192930.GR22419@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 03:29:30PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > I am personally is not too excited about the case of putting async IO > in separate groups due to the reason that async IO of one group will > start impacting latencies of sync IO of another group and in practice > it might not be desirable. But there are others who have use cases for > separate async IO queue. So as long as switch is there to change the > behavior, I am not too worried. Why not just fix cfq so that it prefers groups w/ sync IOs? -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org