lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/3] cgroup: fsio throttle controller
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 06:41:29PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
>
> sorry for the late reply.
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:47:15PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 11:08:27AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > Alright, let's skip the root cgroup for now. I think the point here is
> > > if we want to provide sync() isolation among cgroups or not.
> > >
> > > According to the manpage:
> > >
> > > sync() causes all pending modifications to filesystem metadata and cached file data to be
> > > written to the underlying filesystems.
> > >
> > > And:
> > > According to the standard specification (e.g., POSIX.1-2001), sync() schedules the writes, but
> > > may return before the actual writing is done. However Linux waits for I/O completions, and
> > > thus sync() or syncfs() provide the same guarantees as fsync called on every file in the sys‐
> > > tem or filesystem respectively.
> > >
> > > Excluding the root cgroup, do you think a sync() issued inside a
> > > specific cgroup should wait for I/O completions only for the writes that
> > > have been generated by that cgroup?
> >
> > Can we account I/O towards the cgroup which issued "sync" only if write
> > rate of sync cgroup is higher than cgroup to which page belongs to. Will
> > that solve problem, assuming its doable?
>
> Maybe this would mitigate the problem, in part, but it doesn't solve it.
>
> The thing is, if a dirty page belongs to a slow cgroup and a fast cgroup
> issues "sync", the fast cgroup needs to wait a lot, because writeback is
> happening at the speed of the slow cgroup.

Hi Andrea,

But that's true only for I/O which has already been submitted to block
layer, right? Any new I/O yet to be submitted could still be attributed
to faster cgroup requesting sync.

Until and unless cgroups limits are absurdly low, it should not take very
long for already submitted I/O to finish. If yes, then in practice, it
might not be a big problem?

Vivek

>
> Ideally in this case we should bump up the writeback speed, maybe even
> temporarily inherit the write rate of the sync cgroup, similarly to a
> priority-inversion locking scenario, but I think it's not doable at the
> moment without applying big changes.
>
> Or we could isolate the sync domain, meaning that a cgroup issuing a
> sync will only wait for the syncing of the pages that belong to that
> sync cgroup. But probably also this method requires big changes...
>
> -Andrea

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-28 20:27    [W:0.080 / U:11.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site