On 08/18/2013 11:59 PM, Gao feng wrote:
> kernel had changed the minimum weight of device blkio from
> 100 to 10 in commit df457f845e5449be2e7d96668791f789b3770ac7.
>
> commit df457f845e5449be2e7d96668791f789b3770ac7
> Author: Justin TerAvest <teravest@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue Mar 8 19:45:00 2011 +0100
>
> blk-cgroup: Lower minimum weight from 100 to 10.
>
> We've found that we still get good, useful isolation at weights this
> low. I'd like to adjust the minimum so that any other changes can take
> these values into account.
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin TerAvest <teravest@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> libvirt should comport with kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao feng <gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> docs/formatdomain.html.in | 4 ++--
> src/util/vircgroup.c | 10 +++++-----
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
What happens when running a newer libvirt with an older kernel? Or in
other words, what error message do you get if you pass a limit lower
than the current kernel can support? I want to make sure the message
looks sane to an end-user before accepting this patch.
>
> - if (weight && (weight > 1000 || weight < 100)) {
> + if (weight && (weight > 1000 || weight < 10)) {
> virReportError(VIR_ERR_INVALID_ARG,
> - _("weight '%u' must be in range (100, 1000)"),
> + _("weight '%u' must be in range (10, 1000)"),
> weight);
> return -1;
In other words, I suspect this code needs to be beefed up to actually
probe whether the kernel accepted the change, rather than blindly doing
the filter ourselves and hoping that it was correct.
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list