Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:36:46 +0200 > Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Does all this code treat /dev/sda1 as a separate device from /dev/sda2? >>> If so, that would be broken. >> Yes, all the partitions are treated as separate devices with >> (potentially) different limiting rules, but I don't understand why it >> would be broken... dev_t has both minor and major numbers, so it would >> be possible to select single partitions as well. > > Well it's functionally broken, isn't it? A physical disk has a fixed > IO bandwidth and when the administrator wants to partition that > bandwidth amongst control groups he will need to consider the entire > device when doing so? > > I mean, the whole point of this feature and of control groups as a > whole is isolation. But /dev/sda1 and /dev/sda2 are very much _not_ > isolated. Whereas /dev/sda and /dev/sdb are (to a large degree) > isolated. well... yes, sounds reasonable. In this case we could just ignore the minor number and consider only major number as the key to identify a specific block device (both for userspace<->kernel interface and when accounting/throttling i/o requests). -Andrea _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
