Re: [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker

2021-04-07 Thread Dan Schatzberg
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:53:00PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 Dan Schatzberg wrote: > >On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:09:02AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > >> On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:16:32 Dan Schatzberg wrote: > >> > +queue_work: > >> > +if (worker) { > >> > +

Re: [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker

2021-04-06 Thread Dan Schatzberg
Hi Hillf, thanks for the review On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:09:02AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:16:32 Dan Schatzberg wrote: > > +queue_work: > > + if (worker) { > > + /* > > +* We need to remove from the idle list here while > > +* holding

Re: [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker

2021-04-05 Thread Ming Lei
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 3:17 AM Dan Schatzberg wrote: > > Existing uses of loop device may have multiple cgroups reading/writing > to the same device. Simply charging resources for I/O to the backing > file could result in priority inversion where one cgroup gets > synchronously blocked, holding up

[PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker

2021-04-02 Thread Dan Schatzberg
Existing uses of loop device may have multiple cgroups reading/writing to the same device. Simply charging resources for I/O to the backing file could result in priority inversion where one cgroup gets synchronously blocked, holding up all other I/O to the loop device. In order to avoid this prior

[PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker

2021-03-29 Thread Dan Schatzberg
Existing uses of loop device may have multiple cgroups reading/writing to the same device. Simply charging resources for I/O to the backing file could result in priority inversion where one cgroup gets synchronously blocked, holding up all other I/O to the loop device. In order to avoid this prior

[PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker

2021-03-16 Thread Dan Schatzberg
Existing uses of loop device may have multiple cgroups reading/writing to the same device. Simply charging resources for I/O to the backing file could result in priority inversion where one cgroup gets synchronously blocked, holding up all other I/O to the loop device. In order to avoid this prior

[PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker

2020-08-31 Thread Dan Schatzberg
Existing uses of loop device may have multiple cgroups reading/writing to the same device. Simply charging resources for I/O to the backing file could result in priority inversion where one cgroup gets synchronously blocked, holding up all other I/O to the loop device. In order to avoid this prior