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 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=VUz8x48YmzHzenhhzFDW+ww8fYqca7qbHGwhC6XnjCo=; b=tIxZ4gbrx4mdAEJjUjq3KtRDrd7YLSEXX+Gfwhod9fxX5gV1FIUykRJTlXcPRjyGBl jaTQPBmiT+c+lKVjrxATgfWfI2hBxaD4PToNtImEprF9Ocm+Qe4jos2ICGntUhwatpKz IE4mUwv21jyZXbrfBA32vGX1a6GTamx4Eex3m1B+H2H76Q8Fc/EOvMgk1Ly6XS/wTOFL wj3v41JNXBVFQS36WmYlf0c3I9N94zxsHiKgU30/iHDjcFPaSlvEMy7PpFBVMqN7o9Ya ZD1vbnYauSsWWwAxSOuyCXWr7LTKAL23kPWRrqVnud0QgqzSv+tw22sDl35B1kihvV9Z Cifw== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120420192930.GR22419@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 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