Re: [RFC] writeback and cgroup

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 02:33:01PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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?

There may be a sync+async group in front, but when switch into it, it
decides to give its async queue a run. That's not necessarily a bad
decision, but we do lose some control here.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[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]