lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH V4 05/15] blk-throttle: add downgrade logic
    On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:42:00PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 04:21:21PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
    > > 1. A cgroup and its high and max limits don't have much to do with
    > > other cgroups and their limits. I don't get how the choice between
    > > high and max limits can be a td-wide state.
    >
    > Ah, okay, this combines with idle cgroup detection to determine
    > whether the cgroups should be allowed to exceed high limits. It makes
    > more sense to me now. In that case, for the high/max limit range
    > issues, the enforced high/max limits can simply follow what's implied
    > by the configuration. e.g. if high=100 max=80, just behave as if both
    > high and max are 80.
    >
    > > 2. Comparing parent's and child's limits and saying that either can be
    > > ignored because one is higher than the other isn't correct. A
    > > parent's limit doesn't apply to each child separately. It has to
    > > be aggregated. e.g. you can ignore a parent's setting if the sum
    > > of all children's limits is smaller than the parent's but then
    > > again there could still be a lower limit higher up the tree, so
    > > they would still have to be examined.
    >
    > This part still seems weird tho. What am I misunderstanding?

    You are right, the checks are unncessary. I'll delete them.

    Thanks,
    Shaohua

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-11-23 00:38    [W:2.375 / U:0.256 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site