[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120413181705.GD12233@google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:17:05 -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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] blkcg: implement per-queue policy activation
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 02:12:57PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:29:39PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> [..]
> > diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c
> > index be3ab6d..6a55d41 100644
> > --- a/block/elevator.c
> > +++ b/block/elevator.c
> > @@ -896,8 +896,6 @@ static int elevator_switch(struct request_queue *q, struct elevator_type *new_e)
> > ioc_clear_queue(q);
> > spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock);
> >
> > - blkg_destroy_all(q, false);
> > -
>
> So now groups don't reclaimed until either cgroup is deleted or queue
> exits. So if BLK_DEV_THROTTLE=n and cfq is switched out, blkg created
> by CFQ policy will not be reclaimed (despite the fact nobody is using
> them).
It's not difficult to change. We can just trigger reclaim if no
policy is enabled for the queue. Hmmm... yeah, that's gonna be like
five line change. I'll add it.
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