[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinXa4Zjg0zGbPQRZQi2QW_-0y+PBzQwcdjPLVKZ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:19:43 -0800
From: Justin TerAvest <teravest@...gle.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Chad Talbott <ctalbott@...gle.com>,
Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>,
Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: RFC: default group_isolation to 1, remove option
Hi Vivek,
I'd like to propose removing the group_isolation setting and changing
the default to 1. Do we know if anyone is using group_isolation=0 to get
easy group separation between sequential readers and random readers?
Allowing group_isolation complicates implementing per-cgroup request
descriptor pools when a queue is moved to the root group. Specifically,
if we have pools per-cgroup, we would be forced to use request
descriptors from the pool for the "original" cgroup, while the requests
are actually being serviced by the root cgroup.
That might be acceptable, but I figured this would be a good opportunity
to revisit keeping queues within their original groups.
I know this discussion has come up before. I'm curious if we have a good
reason to keep it around right now. I'd be happy to do some investigation
to help make my case.
Thanks,
Justin
--
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