[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120427172519.GB26595@google.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:25:19 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, 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@...el.com, hughd@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] blkcg: implement per-blkg request allocation
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> For non-priviliged users, something along the lines of per session
> cpu autogroup might make sense. But even then if some IO is submitted
> from that autoblkgroup, kernel can't claim that memory till IO is
> completed.
>
> So per cgroup number of request will probably be a problem even if
> kenrel managed those completely.
My point was that trying to solve all the policy decisions in kernel
proper is not a very good idea.
> So are you planning to put a patch in kernel to disallow cgroup creation
> for non-priviliged users?
No, I'm not gonna break the current users. It's just not the
direction I want to take cgroup towards and the current breakages will
remain broken.
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