[Devel] Re: RFC: Attaching threads to cgroups is OK?

[Hirokazu Takahashi]

Hi, fernando,

> > IMHO, optimizing the synchronous path alone would justify the addition
> > of io_context in bio. There is more to this though.
> > 
> > As you point out, it would seem that aio and buffered IO would not
> > benefit from caching the io context in the bio itself, but there are
> > some subtleties here. Let's consider stacking devices and buffered IO,
> > for example. When a bio enters such a device it may get replicated
> > several times and, depending on the topology, some other derivative bios
> > will be created (RAID1 and parity configurations come to mind,
> > respectively). The problem here is that the memory allocated for the
> > newly created bios will be owned by the corresponding dm or md kernel
> > thread, not the originator of the bio we are replicating or calculating
> > the parity bits from.
> 
> I've already tried implementing this feature. Will you take a look
> at the thread whose subject is "I/O context inheritance" in
> http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0804.2/index.html#2857.

When I started to implement this, I would make each bio have two
io_contexts -- per-process io_context which had ionice and
and per-cgroup io_context.

> This code is not merged with bio-cgroup yet but I believe some of the code
> will help you implement what you want.
> 
> Through this work, I realized that if you want introduce
> per-device-io_context -- each cgroup can have several io_contexts
> for several devices -- it is unable to determine which io_context
> should be used when read or write I/O is requested because the device
> is determined right before the request is passed to the block I/O layer.
> 
> I mean a bio is allocated in the VFS while the device which handles
> the I/O request is determined in one of the underlying filesystems.
> 
> > The implication of this is that if we took the longer path (via
> > bio_cgroup) to obtain the io_context of those bios we would end up
> > charging the wrong guy for that IO: the kernel thread, not the
> > perpetrator of the IO.
> > 
> > A possible solution to this could be to track the original bio inside
> > the stacking device so that the io context of derivative bios can be
> > obtained from its bio_cgroup. However, I am afraid such an approach
> > would be overly complex and slow.
> > 
> > My feeling is that storing the io_context also in bios is the right way
> > to go: once the bio enters the block layer the kernel we can forget
> > about memory-related issues, thus avoiding what is arguably a layering
> > violation; io context information is not lost inside stacking devices
> > (we just need to make sure that whenever new bios are created the
> > io_context is carried over from the original one); and, finally, the
> > synchronous path can be easily optimized.
> > 
> > I hope this makes sense.
> > 
> > Thank you for your comments.
> > 
> > - Fernando

Thank you,
Hirokazu Takahashi.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers