From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] buffered write IO controller in balance_dirty_pages() Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:10:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20120328211017.GF3376@redhat.com> References: <20120328121308.568545879@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linux Memory Management List , Suresh Jayaraman , Andrea Righi , Jeff Moyer , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML To: Fengguang Wu Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20900 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932851Ab2C1VKZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:10:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120328121308.568545879@intel.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:13:08PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > Here is one possible solution to "buffered write IO controller", based on Linux > v3.3 > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/linux.git buffered-write-io-controller > > Features: > - support blkio.weight So this does proportional write bandwidth division on bdi for buffered writes? > - support blkio.throttle.buffered_write_bps This is absolute limit systemwide or per bdi? [..] > The test results included in the last patch look pretty good in despite of the > simple implementation. > > [PATCH 1/6] blk-cgroup: move blk-cgroup.h in include/linux/blk-cgroup.h > [PATCH 2/6] blk-cgroup: account dirtied pages > [PATCH 3/6] blk-cgroup: buffered write IO controller - bandwidth weight > [PATCH 4/6] blk-cgroup: buffered write IO controller - bandwidth limit > [PATCH 5/6] blk-cgroup: buffered write IO controller - bandwidth limit interface > [PATCH 6/6] blk-cgroup: buffered write IO controller - debug trace > Hi Fengguang, Only patch 0 and patch 4 have shown up in my mail box. Same seems to be the case for lkml. I am wondering what happened to rest of the patches. Will understand the patches better once I have the full set. Thanks Vivek