From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jaxboe@fusionio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] blk-throttle: Take blkcg->lock while traversing blkcg->policy_list
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:10:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111021121043.GB6474@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111020212958.GA25124@google.com>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 02:29:58PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 05:20:21PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > The only problem with this approach is that it will cleanup per device
> > weight rules also at elevator_exit() time which is not same as device
> > removal and one might device to bring CFQ back on device and we will
> > need the rules again.
>
> I actually think removoing those rules on elevator detach would be the
> right thing to do. We don't try to keep cfq setting across elevator
> switch. When we're switching from cfq, we're detaching iocg policy
> too. The settings going away is perfectly fine. I actually think
> it's a pretty bad idea to implement ad-hoc setting persistence in
> kernel. Just making sure that userland is notified is far better
> approach. Userland has all the facilities to deal with this type of
> situations.
>
> When switching from cfq to deadline, we lose the whole proportional io
> control. It's way more confusing to have lingering settings which
> don't do anything.
I am not so sure about this. Suppose tomorrow another IO sheduler starts
taking into account the cgroup gloabl weight or cgroup per device weight
to do some kind of IO prioritization, then removing the rules upon
changing the IO schduler will not make sense.
IOW, rules are per cgroup per device and not per cgroup per IO scheduler
and more than one IO scheduler should be able to share the rules.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-21 12:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-20 21:08 [PATCH 1/2] blk-throttle: Free up policy node associated with deleted rule Vivek Goyal
2011-10-20 21:08 ` [PATCH 2/2] blk-throttle: Take blkcg->lock while traversing blkcg->policy_list Vivek Goyal
2011-10-20 21:11 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-20 21:20 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-20 21:29 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-21 12:10 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-10-25 14:13 ` Jens Axboe
2011-10-25 19:01 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-20 21:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] blk-throttle: Free up policy node associated with deleted rule Tejun Heo
2011-10-25 13:36 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-25 13:45 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111021121043.GB6474@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.