From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:38227 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754917AbcK1WOb (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2016 17:14:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 14:14:16 -0800 From: Shaohua Li To: Tejun Heo CC: , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 11/15] blk-throttle: add interface to configure think time threshold Message-ID: <20161128221415.GA94530@shli-mbp.local> References: <52aae27038728bf0fd1b2b3b6536fcc28c9f2e6c.1479161136.git.shli@fb.com> <20161123213243.GD11306@mtj.duckdns.org> <20161124010629.GB4724@ksenks-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20161128220818.GA12948@htj.duckdns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <20161128220818.GA12948@htj.duckdns.org> Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 05:08:18PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Shaohua. > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 05:06:30PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > > > Shouldn't this be a per-cgroup setting along with latency target? > > > These two are the parameters which define how the cgroup should be > > > treated time-wise. > > > > It should be easy to make it per-cgroup. Just not sure if it should be > > per-cgroup. The logic is if the disk is faster, wait time should be shorter to > > not harm performance. So it sounds like a per-disk characteristic. > > Yes, this is something dependent on the device, but also on the > workload. For both this parameter and the latency target, it seems > that they should be specified along with the actual device limits so > that they follow the same convention and can be specified per cgroup * > block device. What do you think? That's ok, I'm totally fine to make it per cgroup and per disk. Thanks, Shaohua