public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	lsf@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: cgroup IO throttling and filesystem ordered mode (Was: Re: [Lsf] IO less throttling and cgroup aware writeback (Was: Re: Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF))
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:17:23 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110419171723.GM31712@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110419143022.GB31712@redhat.com>

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:30:22AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:

[..]
> > 
> > In XFS, you could probably do this at the transaction reservation
> > stage where log space is reserved. We know everything about the
> > transaction at this point in time, and we throttle here already when
> > the journal is full. Adding cgroup transaction limits to this point
> > would be the place to do it, but the control parameter for it would
> > be very XFS specific (i.e. number of transactions/s). Concurrency is
> > not an issue - the XFS transaction subsystem is only limited in
> > concurrency by the space available in the journal for reservations
> > (hundred to thousands of concurrent transactions).
> 
> Instead of transaction per second, can we implement some kind of upper
> limit of pending transactions per cgroup. And that limit does not have
> to be user tunable to begin with. The effective transactions/sec rate
> will automatically be determined by IO throttling rate of the cgroup
> at the end nodes.
> 
> I think effectively what we need is that the notion of parallel
> transactions so that transactions of one cgroup can make progress
> independent of transactions of other cgroup. So if a process does
> an fsync and it is throttled then it should block transaction of 
> only that cgroup and not other cgroups.
> 
> You mentioned that concurrency is not an issue in XFS and hundreds of
> thousands of concurrent trasactions can progress depending on log space
> available. If that's the case, I think to begin with we might not have
> to do anything at all. Processes can still get blocked but as long as
> we have enough log space, this might not be a frequent event. I will
> do some testing with XFS and see can I livelock the system with very
> low IO limits.

Wow, XFS seems to be doing pretty good here. I created a group of
1 bytes/sec limit and wrote few bytes in a file and write quit it (vim).
That led to an fsync and process got blocked. From a different cgroup, in the
same directory I seem to be able to do all other regular operations like ls,
opening a new file, editing it etc.

ext4 will lockup immediately. So concurrent transactions do seem to work in
XFS.

Thanks
Vivek

  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-04-19 17:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20110401214947.GE6957@dastard>
     [not found] ` <20110405131359.GA14239@redhat.com>
     [not found]   ` <20110405225639.GB31057@dastard>
     [not found]     ` <20110406153715.GA18777@redhat.com>
     [not found]       ` <20110406235039.GL31057@dastard>
     [not found]         ` <20110407175537.GD27778@redhat.com>
     [not found]           ` <20110411013630.GM30279@dastard>
     [not found]             ` <20110415210750.GC28323@redhat.com>
     [not found]               ` <20110416030602.GA26191@redhat.com>
     [not found]                 ` <20110418215844.GA15428@quack.suse.cz>
2011-04-18 22:51                   ` cgroup IO throttling and filesystem ordered mode (Was: Re: [Lsf] IO less throttling and cgroup aware writeback (Was: Re: Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF)) Vivek Goyal
2011-04-19  0:33                     ` Dave Chinner
2011-04-19 14:30                       ` Vivek Goyal
2011-04-19 14:45                         ` Jan Kara
2011-04-19 17:17                         ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-04-19 18:30                           ` Vivek Goyal
2011-04-21  0:32                             ` Dave Chinner
2011-04-21  0:29                         ` Dave Chinner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110419171723.GM31712@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=gthelen@google.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lsf@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox