lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 3/4] io controller: Core IO controller implementation logic
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 12:21:45PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:30:25 -0500
> vgoyal@redhat.com wrote:
>
> >
> > o Core IO controller implementation
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
> >
>
> 2 comments after a quick look.
>
> - I don't recommend generic work queue. More stacked dependency between "work"
> is not good. (I think disk-driver uses "work" for their jobs.)

Sorry, I did not get this. Are you recommending that don't create a new
work queue, instead use existing work queue (say kblockd) to submit the bios
here?

I will look into it. I was little worried about a kblockd being overworked
in case of too many logical devices enabling IO controller.

>
> - It seems this bio-cgroup can queue the bio to infinite. Then, a process can submit
> io unitl cause OOM.
> (IIUC, Dirty bit of the page is cleared at submitting I/O.
> Then dirty_ratio can't help us.)
> please add "wait for congestion by sleeping" code in bio-cgroup.

Yes, you are right. I need to put some kind of control on max number of
bios I can queue on a cgroup and after crossing the limit, I should put
the submitting task to sleep. (Something like request descriptor kind of
flow control implememented by elevators).

Thanks
Vivek


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-07 15:57    [W:0.119 / U:2.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site