Ryo Tsuruta wrote: > Hi Kamezawa-san, > > As you wrote before (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/22/65) >> To be honest, what I expected in these days for people of blockio >> cgroup is like following for getting room for themselves. > <<snip>> >> --- mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16.orig/include/linux/page_cgroup.h >> +++ mmotm-2.6.31-Jul16/include/linux/page_cgroup.h >> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ >> struct page_cgroup { >> unsigned long flags; >> struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup; >> - struct page *page; >> + /* block io tracking will use extra unsigned long bytes */ >> struct list_head lru; /* per cgroup LRU list */ >> }; > > Have you already added a room for blkio_cgroup in struct page_cgroup? No. > If not, I would like you to apply the above change to mmotm. > Plz wait until October. We're deadly busy and some amount of more important patches are piled up in front of us. I have no objections if you add a pointer or id because I know I can reduce 8(4)bytes later. Just add (a small) member for a while and ignore page_cgroup's size. I'll fix later. > The latest blkio-cgroup has reflected the comments you pointed out. > I would also like you to give me any comments on it and consider > merging blkio-cgroup to mmotm. > BTW, do you all have cosensus about implementation ? Bye, -Kame -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
