From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [Lsf] Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:09:21 -0400 Message-ID: <20110329190921.GH24485@redhat.com> References: <1301373398.2590.20.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: James Bottomley , lsf@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Chad Talbott Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43803 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751835Ab1C2TJ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:09:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:35:13AM -0700, Chad Talbott wrote: > I'd like to propose a discussion topic: > > IO-less Dirty Throttling Considered Harmful... > I see that writeback has extended session at 10.00. I am assuming IO less throttling will be discussed there. Is it possible to discuss its effect on block cgroups there? I am not sure enough time is there because it ties in memory cgroup also. Or there is a session at 12.30 "memcg dirty limits and writeback", it can probably be discussed there too. > to isolation and cgroup IO schedulers in general. The disk scheduler > is knocked out of the picture unless it can see the IO generated by > each group above it. The world of memcg-aware writeback stacked on > top of block-cgroups is a complicated one. Throttling in > balance_dirty_pages() will likely be a non-starter for current users > of group-aware CFQ. Can't a single flusher thread keep all the groups busy/full on slow SATA device. Thanks Vivek