> > Hi Xuehan, > > While I understand the desire to use the cgroup interface to allow for > easy adjustment and process granularity, I think this is unlikely to be > accepted in the form of a new controller. Each controller is supposed > to distribute a specific resource and meta iops, data iops and data > band(width?) mostly fall under the realm of the existing I/O > controller. Have you run this by the cgroup folks? > > Regardless, take a look at Documentation/process/coding-style.rst for > rules on indentation, line length, etc. Also, the data throttle should > apply to rbd too, so I would change the name to "ceph". > > Thanks, > > Ilya Hi, Ilya, thanks for your review:-) I investigated the existing blkio controller before trying to implement a new controller. If I understand the code of blkio correctly, it's mainly dedicated to limiting the block device io and takes effect by cooperating with the io scheduler which ceph io path doesn't contain. So I think maybe a new controller should be appropriate. After all, network file system "io" is not real I/O, right? I did submit this patch to cgroup mailling list, yesterday. But no response has been received. I don't quite understand the procedure that needs to follow to contribute to the cgroup source code. Maybe I didn't do it right:-(
