[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120401212258.GA12359@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 14:22:58 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/21] blkcg: move blkio_group_conf->weight to cfq
Hello, Vivek.
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 05:09:56PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> blkio_cgroup->weight can be thought of in a more generic manner and that
> is sytem wide cgroup weight. And more than one policy should be allowed
> to make use of it. That's a differnt thing that currently only CFQ makes
> use of it.
>
> For example, Fengguang posted RFC patches to try to make use of blkcg->weight
> and differentiate between buffered write bandwidth.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/28/275
I don't think that's a good idea. It makes it fuzzy which knob
controls what. If we're gonna have single set of controls followed by
all controllers, fine, but I really don't think we should be mixing
different layers of configurations. I mean, what about blkcg.read_bps
then? Let's just give this one to cfq. If someone else wants weight,
let it use its own weight config.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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