[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120914192840.GG6221@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:28:40 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cgroup TODOs
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:53:24AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
[..]
> In addition, for some resources, granularity beyond certain point
> simply doesn't work. Per-service granularity might make sense for cpu
> but applying it by default would be silly for blkio.
Hmm.., In that case how libvirt will make use of blkio in the proposed
scheme. We can't disable blkio nesting at "system" level. So We will
have to disable it at each service level except "libvirtd" so that
libvirt can use blkio for its virtual machines.
That means blkio will see each service in a cgroup of its own and if
that does not make sense by default, its a problem. In the existing
scheme, atleast every service does not show up in its cgroup from
blkio point of view. Everthig is in root and libvirt can create its
own cgroups, keeping number of cgroups small.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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