lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: dm-ioband: Test results.
On Mon, Apr 27 2009 at  6:30am -0400,
Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> > Why is it that you repeatedly ignore concern/discussion about your
> > determination to continue using a custom grouping mechanism? It is this
> > type of excess layering that serves no purpose other than to facilitate
> > out-of-tree use-cases. dm-ioband would take a big step closer to being
> > merged upstream if you took others' feedback and showed more willingness
> > to work through the outstanding issues.
>
> I think dm-ioband's approach is one simple way to handle cgroup
> because the current cgroup has no way to manage kernel module's
> resources. Please tell me if you have any good ideas to handle
> cgroup by dm-ioband.

If you'd like to keep dm-ioband modular then I'd say the appropriate
cgroup interfaces need to be exposed for module use (symbols exported,
etc). No other controller has had a need to be modular but if you think
it is requirement for dm-ioband (facilitate updates, etc) then I have to
believe it is doable.

Mike


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-27 15:07    [W:0.178 / U:0.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site