Re: [RFC] writeback and cgroup
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [RFC] writeback and cgroup
- From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:33:01 -0700
- Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, sjayaraman@xxxxxxxx, andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lizefan@xxxxxxxxxx, containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ctalbott@xxxxxxxxxx, rni@xxxxxxxxxx, lsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20120420192930.GR22419@redhat.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 03:29:30PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> I am personally is not too excited about the case of putting async IO
> in separate groups due to the reason that async IO of one group will
> start impacting latencies of sync IO of another group and in practice
> it might not be desirable. But there are others who have use cases for
> separate async IO queue. So as long as switch is there to change the
> behavior, I am not too worried.
Why not just fix cfq so that it prefers groups w/ sync IOs?
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Linux ARM Kernel]
[Linux ARM]
[Linux Omap]
[Fedora ARM]
[IETF Annouce]
[Security]
[Bugtraq]
[Linux]
[Linux OMAP]
[Linux MIPS]
[ECOS]
[Tools]
[DDR & Rambus]
[Asterisk Internet PBX]
[Linux API]
[Monitors]