On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:07 AM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Given that essentially lowest priority is requested under CFQ, >> equivalent result should be possible to achieve with cgroups >> containment. >> Specifically by limiting CPU (cpu.shares set to 100 ~= 1/10 of the >> default 1024) and/or IO weight (blkio.weight) and bandwidth >> (blkio.throttle.read_bps_device / blkio.throttle.write_iops_device) of >> the baloo process. This would then be a scheduler-independent solution >> and make baloo a truly capped resources background process. > > Are you offering to implement this?
Implementation aside, I am not sure this would be a suitable replacement (someone should check with upstream ;)). From what I gather the notion is that baloo should index as fast as possible given resources are available. Throttling through a cgroup containment would lower the available resources in general, wouldn't it? This is supposedly why ioniceness was used instead. If nothing is going on the indexer can work at full speed, while if the user is actually doing something baloo essentially allows the kernel to IO starve it to allow the rest of the system to be snappy. HS -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
