Re: [PATCHSET RFC block/for-next] writeback: cgroup writeback support

2015-01-10 Thread Tejun Heo
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 10:56:53AM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: ... > backpressure propagation. If you start mixing pages from different > cgroups in a single bio, the only options for handling it from the > lower layer is either splitting it into two separate requests and > finish the bio only on comp

Re: [PATCHSET RFC block/for-next] writeback: cgroup writeback support

2015-01-10 Thread Tejun Heo
Hey, On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 11:38:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > What's implemented in this patchset is > > propagation of memcg tags for pagecache pages. If necessary, further > > mechanisms can be added, but this should cover the basics. > > Sure, but I'm just pointing out that if you di

Re: [PATCHSET RFC block/for-next] writeback: cgroup writeback support

2015-01-09 Thread Dave Chinner
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 04:23:36PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Dave. > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:45:32AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Complications mostly arise from filesystems and inodes having to deal > > > with multiple split bdi's instead of one, but those are mostly > > > straigh

Re: [PATCHSET RFC block/for-next] writeback: cgroup writeback support

2015-01-09 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, Jan. On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:30:57AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > * An inode may have pages dirtied by different memcgs, which naturally > > means that it should be able to be dirtied against multiple wb's. > > To support linking an inode against multiple wb's, iwbl > > (inode_wb_lin

Re: [PATCHSET RFC block/for-next] writeback: cgroup writeback support

2015-01-09 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, Dave. On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 10:45:32AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Complications mostly arise from filesystems and inodes having to deal > > with multiple split bdi's instead of one, but those are mostly > > straight-forward 1:N mapping issues. It does get tedious here and > > there b

Re: [PATCHSET RFC block/for-next] writeback: cgroup writeback support

2015-01-08 Thread Jan Kara
Hello, On Tue 06-01-15 16:25:37, Tejun Heo wrote: > blkio cgroup (blkcg) is severely crippled in that it can only control > read and direct write IOs. blkcg can't tell which cgroup should be > held responsible for a given writeback IO and charges all of them to > the root cgroup - all normal wr

Re: [PATCHSET RFC block/for-next] writeback: cgroup writeback support

2015-01-07 Thread Dave Chinner
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:44:26PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, again. A bit of addition. > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:25:37PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > ... > > Overall design > > -- > > What's going on in this patchset is fairly straight forward. The main > thing which is hap

Re: [PATCHSET RFC block/for-next] writeback: cgroup writeback support

2015-01-06 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, again. A bit of addition. On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:25:37PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: ... > Overall design > -- What's going on in this patchset is fairly straight forward. The main thing which is happening is that a bdi is being split into multiple per-cgroup pieces. Each sp

[PATCHSET RFC block/for-next] writeback: cgroup writeback support

2015-01-06 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, blkio cgroup (blkcg) is severely crippled in that it can only control read and direct write IOs. blkcg can't tell which cgroup should be held responsible for a given writeback IO and charges all of them to the root cgroup - all normal write traffic ends up in the root cgroup. Although the