[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090427130331.GB3872@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:03:32 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
Cc: dm-devel@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, fernando@....ntt.co.jp,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jmoyer@...hat.com,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, nauman@...gle.com, agk@...hat.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: dm-ioband: Test results.
On Mon, Apr 27 2009 at 6:30am -0400,
Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> > Why is it that you repeatedly ignore concern/discussion about your
> > determination to continue using a custom grouping mechanism? It is this
> > type of excess layering that serves no purpose other than to facilitate
> > out-of-tree use-cases. dm-ioband would take a big step closer to being
> > merged upstream if you took others' feedback and showed more willingness
> > to work through the outstanding issues.
>
> I think dm-ioband's approach is one simple way to handle cgroup
> because the current cgroup has no way to manage kernel module's
> resources. Please tell me if you have any good ideas to handle
> cgroup by dm-ioband.
If you'd like to keep dm-ioband modular then I'd say the appropriate
cgroup interfaces need to be exposed for module use (symbols exported,
etc). No other controller has had a need to be modular but if you think
it is requirement for dm-ioband (facilitate updates, etc) then I have to
believe it is doable.
Mike
--
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