From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932372AbbFQVtJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:49:09 -0400
Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:41112 "EHLO imap.thunk.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751444AbbFQVtF (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:49:05 -0400
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:48:52 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        lizefan@huawei.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] writeback, blkio: add documentation for cgroup
 writeback support
Message-ID: <20150617214852.GE4076@thunk.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, axboe@kernel.dk,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	lizefan@huawei.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
References: <1434146254-26220-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <1434146254-26220-4-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <20150615172823.GA5783@redhat.com>
 <20150615182345.GB18517@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20150615233519.GB30059@thunk.org>
 <20150616215436.GE22637@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20150617031540.GB4076@thunk.org>
 <20150617185237.GL22637@mtj.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150617185237.GL22637@mtj.duckdns.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 02:52:37PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> Hmmm... so, overriding things *before* an bio is issued shouldn't be
> too difficult and as long as this sort of operations aren't prevalent
> we might be able to get away with just charging them against root.
> Especially if it's to avoid getting blocked on the journal which we
> already consider a shared overhead which is charged to root.  If this
> becomes large enough to require exacting charges, it'll be more
> complex but still way better than trying to raise priority on a bio
> which is already issued, which is likely to be excruciatingly painful
> if possible at all.

Yeah, just charging the overhead to root seems good enough.

I could imagine charging it to whatever cgroup the jbd/jbd2 thread
belongs to, which in turn would be the cgroup of the process that
mounted the file system.  The only problem with that is that if a
low-priority process is allowed to mount a file system, and it gets
traversed by a high priority process, the high priority process will
get impacted.  So maybe it's better to just say that it always get
charged to the root cgroup.

					- Ted

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso-3s7WtUTddSA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] writeback, blkio: add documentation for cgroup
 writeback support
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:48:52 -0400
Message-ID: <20150617214852.GE4076@thunk.org>
References: <1434146254-26220-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <1434146254-26220-4-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <20150615172823.GA5783@redhat.com>
 <20150615182345.GB18517@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20150615233519.GB30059@thunk.org>
 <20150616215436.GE22637@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20150617031540.GB4076@thunk.org>
 <20150617185237.GL22637@mtj.duckdns.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150617185237.GL22637-qYNAdHglDFBN0TnZuCh8vA@public.gmane.org>
Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 02:52:37PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 
> Hmmm... so, overriding things *before* an bio is issued shouldn't be
> too difficult and as long as this sort of operations aren't prevalent
> we might be able to get away with just charging them against root.
> Especially if it's to avoid getting blocked on the journal which we
> already consider a shared overhead which is charged to root.  If this
> becomes large enough to require exacting charges, it'll be more
> complex but still way better than trying to raise priority on a bio
> which is already issued, which is likely to be excruciatingly painful
> if possible at all.

Yeah, just charging the overhead to root seems good enough.

I could imagine charging it to whatever cgroup the jbd/jbd2 thread
belongs to, which in turn would be the cgroup of the process that
mounted the file system.  The only problem with that is that if a
low-priority process is allowed to mount a file system, and it gets
traversed by a high priority process, the high priority process will
get impacted.  So maybe it's better to just say that it always get
charged to the root cgroup.

					- Ted