From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] blkcg: implement per-blkg request allocation Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:02:17 -0700 Message-ID: <20120427150217.GK27486@google.com> References: <1335477561-11131-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1335477561-11131-12-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> 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=VyRzI4HRXw5mf7SCNQv56m9ozfEhHyfrYCiaLMKF2Vw=; b=zAEFZBo9JmtGqge2cT4PwqrW5ZxDGqa8laG0NpjU7DIB1M2TAxbqczD+Q6DmGxNTXU HEyBJ5+YZMGL1SMZf0Etx6vx4CseQHnZAKKLQkLyZHZ+XqmZEsBKC6gBCCjxjZH3ef1L NKOal/NtkySmz3Wx5zyH6VQIEKBlnNYTL+LFDS+BTQzyzfP79v5Hq1ZQOAKkyc9qCY3H ztEGT/x+z0d9r7TnOlxRrzvVIYT2TxUA5YHAiE0l2PTS+c+XNN0pUgCV7lf1TAJ1kf2G VAZRAgvhzdfSoXwaWhc8O+vJFchJvq9mr+Qp8M257ZM8scT++HUzLUG7qxa1bV31yrze Bo7w== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jeff Moyer Cc: axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org, vgoyal-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, ctalbott-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, rni-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, fengguang.wu-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, hughd-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org Hello, On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:54:01AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > This patch implements per-blkg request_list. Each blkg has its own > > request_list and any IO allocates its request from the matching blkg > > making blkcgs completely isolated in terms of request allocation. > > So, nr_requests is now actually nr_requests * # of blk cgroups. Is that > right? Are you at all concerned about the amount of memory that can be > tied up as the number of cgroups increases? Yeah, I thought about it and I don't think there's a single good solution here. The other extreme would be splitting nr_requests by the number of cgroups but that seems even worse - each cgroup should be able to hit maximum throughput. Given that a lot of workloads tend to regulate themselves before hitting nr_requests, I think it's best to leave it as-is and treat each cgroup as having separate channel for now. It's a configurable parameter after all. Thanks. -- tejun