[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4864C6A8.6050605@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:53:28 +0200
From: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, menage@...gle.com, chlunde@...g.uio.no,
axboe@...nel.dk, matt@...ehost.com, roberto@...it.it,
randy.dunlap@...cle.com, dpshah@...gle.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] i/o bandwidth controller infrastructure
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:36:46 +0200
> Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> wrote:
>
>>> Does all this code treat /dev/sda1 as a separate device from /dev/sda2?
>>> If so, that would be broken.
>> Yes, all the partitions are treated as separate devices with
>> (potentially) different limiting rules, but I don't understand why it
>> would be broken... dev_t has both minor and major numbers, so it would
>> be possible to select single partitions as well.
>
> Well it's functionally broken, isn't it? A physical disk has a fixed
> IO bandwidth and when the administrator wants to partition that
> bandwidth amongst control groups he will need to consider the entire
> device when doing so?
>
> I mean, the whole point of this feature and of control groups as a
> whole is isolation. But /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2 are very much _not_
> isolated. Whereas /dev/sda and /dev/sdb are (to a large degree)
> isolated.
well... yes, sounds reasonable. In this case we could just ignore the
minor number and consider only major number as the key to identify a
specific block device (both for userspace<->kernel interface and when
accounting/throttling i/o requests).
-Andrea
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists