On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 01:39:57PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Vivek.
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:21:09PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > What about sync/async differentiation? Throttling layer seems to flag a
> > request sync
> > only if bio->bi_rw flag has REQ_SYNC set. While CFQ seems to
Hello, Vivek.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:21:09PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> What about sync/async differentiation? Throttling layer seems to flag a
> request sync
> only if bio->bi_rw flag has REQ_SYNC set. While CFQ seems to consider
> request sync if bio is either read or bio->bi_rw has REQ_SY
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:21:09PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> In general this idea makes sense. Exporting both request and bio will
> solve the problem of io accounting. Also that should allow us to
> get rid of blkio.io_merged.
Yeah, that'd make more sense, I think. IO submitted vs. act
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:00:43PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:58:35PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Oh, sorry, I had misunderstood your question.
> >
> > - Number of IOs serviced will be different at throttling layer and
> > CFQ layer as throttling accounts
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:58:35PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Oh, sorry, I had misunderstood your question.
>
> - Number of IOs serviced will be different at throttling layer and
> CFQ layer as throttling accounts IO in terms of bios and CFQ
> accounts in terms of number of requests.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 02:52:31PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:17:20PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > I think we should just require two. One for measuring rate in terms
> > of IOPS and other for measuring rate in terms of [kMG]B/sec.
>
> I meant between cfq and
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:17:20PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> I think we should just require two. One for measuring rate in terms
> of IOPS and other for measuring rate in terms of [kMG]B/sec.
I meant between cfq and blk-throttle. Why do we have separate stats
for them to present ultimat
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:01:41PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:18:26AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Ok, that's fine. Let us just document the knobs well so that people can
> > find which knob is giving what information and make cfq names better at
> > the expense of incons
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:18:26AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Ok, that's fine. Let us just document the knobs well so that people can
> find which knob is giving what information and make cfq names better at
> the expense of inconsistency of names with throttling layer.
I've been thinking about i
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:06:50AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
[..]
> But then do we name other stat knobs similarly too?
>
> blkio.cfq.io_service_sectors
> blkio.cfq.io_service_bytes
> blkio.cfq.io_serviced
> blkio.cfq.io_merged
>
> I don't know. The names look outright stupid to me. If we do
Hello,
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 09:53:59AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> But looks like that you are targetting that one can have multiple
> hierarchies. One of those will be unified hierarchy with new contstraints.
> Other hierarchies can be old type hierarchies. Do I understand it right?
Yeap, for
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 03:32:14PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
[..]
> > So now we have tree modes?
> >
> > - Orignal multi hierachy mode
> > - Multi hierarchy with sane flag
> > - Sane flag modifies behavior of throttling.
> > - Unified hierarchy
> > - Changes tunables.
>
> No, we don't. __
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 02:08:24PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Can you please also update Documentation/block/cfq-iosched.txt and
> Documentation/cgroup/blkio-controller.txt to reflect these new
> changes.
Sure thing.
> So now we have tree modes?
>
> - Orignal multi hierachy mode
> - Mul
On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 09:32:09PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Unified hierarchy has finally been posted.
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers/27601
>
> It took a lot longer than I originally anticipated and over the course
> quite a few aspects of the initial des
Hello,
Unified hierarchy has finally been posted.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers/27601
It took a lot longer than I originally anticipated and over the course
quite a few aspects of the initial design have changed, hopefully, for
the better. One of the areas which has se
15 matches
Mail list logo
