From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konstantin Khlebnikov Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] fsio: filesystem io accounting cgroup Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:15:14 +0400 Message-ID: <51DC0CE2.2050906@openvz.org> References: <20130708100046.14417.12932.stgit@zurg> <20130708170047.GA18600@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130708175201.GB9094@redhat.com> <20130708175607.GB18600@mtj.dyndns.org> <51DBC99F.4030301@openvz.org> <20130709125734.GA2478@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BiYsMIoDns9k/DMiN0YETmhEU7rIp35HDI85K3oc7BQ=; b=awBQKEemVeNlc95vpQhekSUPmsxOSNjx8J1QqaCm8yYZM4b2npWxtXZYJaymbZVTWF Cbn5fMJDa9l2hPCrpeFt47RTRmdBfx0BQGR1azh8luuvPDvIegRW6IJuPDHMrI725saF wTLBOtvgKPC8mp83CipI2m2YxzEY85x0LdVR2pE+IxrjUGKOMiwprNeji4t9bK/3k0Ck cpo6TyIV3W6iWnTfKa//z1On9s+LSu/DJfumNgHiNZu4F5uQKSqSe4tjGrMXiZn8N467 n+lQm1dqyKyEoBpyRHnLSmmegnycIiBRHEctdlaBTjQ4ljjBnr95OdNqmcgzuZK2T1vZ 4BBg== In-Reply-To: <20130709125734.GA2478-Gd/HAXX7CRxy/B6EtB590w@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Tejun Heo Cc: Vivek Goyal , linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Michal Hocko , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Sha Zhengju , devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, Jens Axboe Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:28:15PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> Yep, blkio has plenty problems and flaws and I don't get how it's related >> to vfs layer, dirty set control and non-disk or network backed filesystems. >> Any problem can be fixed by introducing new abstract layer, except too many >> abstraction levels. Cgroup is pluggable subsystem, blkio has it's own plugins >> and it's build on top of io scheduler plugin. All this stuff always have worked > > What does that have to do with anything? > >> with block devices. Now you suggest to handle all filesystems in this stack. >> I think binding them to unrealated cgroup is rough leveling violation. > > How is blkio unrelated to filesystems mounted on block devices? > You're suggesting a duplicate solution which can't be complete. blkio controls block devices. not filesystems or superblocks or bdi or pagecache. It's all about block layer and nothing more. Am I right? So, you want to link some completely unrelated subsystems like NFS into the block layer? > >> NFS cannot be controlled only by network throttlers because we >> cannot slow down writeback process when it happens, we must slow >> down tasks who generates dirty memory. > > That's exactly the same problem why blkio doesn't work for async IOs > right now, so if you're interested in the area, please contribute to > fixing that problem. > >> Plus it's close to impossible to separate several workloads if they >> share one NFS sb. > > Again, the same problem with blkio. We need separate pressure > channels on bdi for each cgroup. > > Thanks. > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx172.postini.com [74.125.245.172]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C2B8A6B0031 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:15:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id er20so4747544lab.3 for ; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 06:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51DC0CE2.2050906@openvz.org> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:15:14 +0400 From: Konstantin Khlebnikov MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] fsio: filesystem io accounting cgroup References: <20130708100046.14417.12932.stgit@zurg> <20130708170047.GA18600@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130708175201.GB9094@redhat.com> <20130708175607.GB18600@mtj.dyndns.org> <51DBC99F.4030301@openvz.org> <20130709125734.GA2478@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20130709125734.GA2478@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: Vivek Goyal , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Sha Zhengju , devel@openvz.org, Jens Axboe Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:28:15PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> Yep, blkio has plenty problems and flaws and I don't get how it's related >> to vfs layer, dirty set control and non-disk or network backed filesystems. >> Any problem can be fixed by introducing new abstract layer, except too many >> abstraction levels. Cgroup is pluggable subsystem, blkio has it's own plugins >> and it's build on top of io scheduler plugin. All this stuff always have worked > > What does that have to do with anything? > >> with block devices. Now you suggest to handle all filesystems in this stack. >> I think binding them to unrealated cgroup is rough leveling violation. > > How is blkio unrelated to filesystems mounted on block devices? > You're suggesting a duplicate solution which can't be complete. blkio controls block devices. not filesystems or superblocks or bdi or pagecache. It's all about block layer and nothing more. Am I right? So, you want to link some completely unrelated subsystems like NFS into the block layer? > >> NFS cannot be controlled only by network throttlers because we >> cannot slow down writeback process when it happens, we must slow >> down tasks who generates dirty memory. > > That's exactly the same problem why blkio doesn't work for async IOs > right now, so if you're interested in the area, please contribute to > fixing that problem. > >> Plus it's close to impossible to separate several workloads if they >> share one NFS sb. > > Again, the same problem with blkio. We need separate pressure > channels on bdi for each cgroup. > > Thanks. > -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753895Ab3GINPW (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:15:22 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53]:43082 "EHLO mail-la0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753731Ab3GINPT (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:15:19 -0400 Message-ID: <51DC0CE2.2050906@openvz.org> Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:15:14 +0400 From: Konstantin Khlebnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130119 Firefox/10.0.11esrpre Iceape/2.7.12 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: Vivek Goyal , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Sha Zhengju , devel@openvz.org, Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] fsio: filesystem io accounting cgroup References: <20130708100046.14417.12932.stgit@zurg> <20130708170047.GA18600@mtj.dyndns.org> <20130708175201.GB9094@redhat.com> <20130708175607.GB18600@mtj.dyndns.org> <51DBC99F.4030301@openvz.org> <20130709125734.GA2478@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20130709125734.GA2478@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:28:15PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> Yep, blkio has plenty problems and flaws and I don't get how it's related >> to vfs layer, dirty set control and non-disk or network backed filesystems. >> Any problem can be fixed by introducing new abstract layer, except too many >> abstraction levels. Cgroup is pluggable subsystem, blkio has it's own plugins >> and it's build on top of io scheduler plugin. All this stuff always have worked > > What does that have to do with anything? > >> with block devices. Now you suggest to handle all filesystems in this stack. >> I think binding them to unrealated cgroup is rough leveling violation. > > How is blkio unrelated to filesystems mounted on block devices? > You're suggesting a duplicate solution which can't be complete. blkio controls block devices. not filesystems or superblocks or bdi or pagecache. It's all about block layer and nothing more. Am I right? So, you want to link some completely unrelated subsystems like NFS into the block layer? > >> NFS cannot be controlled only by network throttlers because we >> cannot slow down writeback process when it happens, we must slow >> down tasks who generates dirty memory. > > That's exactly the same problem why blkio doesn't work for async IOs > right now, so if you're interested in the area, please contribute to > fixing that problem. > >> Plus it's close to impossible to separate several workloads if they >> share one NFS sb. > > Again, the same problem with blkio. We need separate pressure > channels on bdi for each cgroup. > > Thanks. >