| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: Too many I/O controller patches
|
To: |
righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: Too many I/O controller patches |
|
From: |
Hirokazu Takahashi <taka@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Tue, 05 Aug 2008 19:01:13 +0900 (JST) |
|
Cc: |
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, agk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Delivery-date: |
Tue, 05 Aug 2008 03:01:41 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<48981E03.5020406@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<48976A2A.9060600@xxxxxxxxx> <20080805.151642.31467169.taka@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <48981E03.5020406@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Hi,
> > Hi, Andrea,
> >
> > I'm working with Ryo on dm-ioband and other stuff.
> >
> >>> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 20:22 +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> >>>> But I'm not yet convinced that limiting the IO writes at the device
> >>>> mapper layer is the best solution. IMHO it would be better to throttle
> >>>> applications' writes when they're dirtying pages in the page cache (the
> >>>> io-throttle way), because when the IO requests arrive to the device
> >>>> mapper it's too late (we would only have a lot of dirty pages that are
> >>>> waiting to be flushed to the limited block devices, and maybe this could
> >>>> lead to OOM conditions). IOW dm-ioband is doing this at the wrong level
> >>>> (at least for my requirements). Ryo, correct me if I'm wrong or if I've
> >>>> not understood the dm-ioband approach.
> >>> The avoid-lots-of-page-dirtying problem sounds like a hard one. But, if
> >>> you look at this in combination with the memory controller, they would
> >>> make a great team.
> >>>
> >>> The memory controller keeps you from dirtying more than your limit of
> >>> pages (and pinning too much memory) even if the dm layer is doing the
> >>> throttling and itself can't throttle the memory usage.
> >> mmh... but in this way we would just move the OOM inside the cgroup,
> >> that is a nice improvement, but the main problem is not resolved...
> >
> > The concept of dm-ioband includes it should be used with cgroup memory
> > controller as well as the bio cgroup. The memory controller is supposed
> > to control memory allocation and dirty-page ratio inside each cgroup.
> >
> > Some guys of cgroup memory controller team just started to implement
> > the latter mechanism. They try to make each cgroup have a threshold
> > to limit the number of dirty pages in the group.
>
> Interesting, they also post a patch or RFC?
You can take a look at the thread start from
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0807.1/0472.html,
whose subject is "[PATCH][RFC] dirty balancing for cgroups."
This project has just started, so it would be a good time to
discuss it with them.
Thanks,
Hirokazu Takahashi.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home