On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 09:26:56AM +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 15/11/2024 06.43, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 10:06:48PM +0100, Florian Schmaus wrote: > > > Set the rebalance thread's scheduling class to BATCH, which means it > > > could experience a higher scheduling latency. However, it reduces > > > preemption events of running threads. > > > > > > And while the rebalance thread is ually not compute bound, it does > > > cause a considerable amount of I/O. By increasing its nice level from > > > 0 to 19 we also implicitly reduce the thread's best-effort I/O > > > scheduling class level from 4 to 7. Therefore, the rebalance thread's > > > I/O operations will be deprioritized over standard I/O operations. > > > > Is there a patch 1/2? > > Sorry, patch 1/2 was unfortunately not send to linux-bcachefs@. You can find > it at > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
2/2: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ Ingo, for sanity could we keep these two patches together? your tree or mine is fine with me, if patch 1/2 is acceptable to you Florian also had another idea I wanted to mention for giving userspace control over sched policy - exposing the pids of our rebalance/copygc/etc. threads in /sys/fs/bcachefs. I'm liking it, do we have precedent elsewhere in the kernel for that?
