[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200526142803.GA1061@dschatzberg-fedora-PC0Y6AEN.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 10:28:03 -0400
From: Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)"
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP - MEMORY RESOURCE CONTROLLER (MEMCG)"
<linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 06:35:45AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 09:25:21AM -0400, Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> > Seems like discussion on this patch series has died down. There's been
> > a concern raised that we could generalize infrastructure across loop,
> > md, etc. This may be possible, in the future, but it isn't clear to me
> > how this would look like. I'm inclined to fix the existing issue with
> > loop devices now (this is a problem we hit at FB) and address
> > consolidation with other cases if and when those are addressed.
> >
> > Jens, you've expressed interest in seeing this series go through the
> > block tree so I'm interested in your perspective here. Barring any
> > concrete implementation bugs, would you be okay merging this version?
>
> Independ of any higher level issues you need to sort out the spinlock
> mess I pointed out.
Will do - I'll split out the lock-use refactor into a separate
patch. Do you have particular concerns about re-using the existing
spinlock? Its existing use is not contended so I didn't see any harm
in extending its use. I'll add this justification to the commit
message as well, but I'm tempted to leave the re-use as is instead of
creating a new lock.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists