On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:29:37 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:21:14 +0200 > Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Subject: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller > > Sorry, but I have to register extreme distress at the name of this. > The term "bio" is well-established in the kernel and here we have a new > definition for the same term: "block I/O". > > "bio" was a fine term for you to have chosen from the user's > perspective, but from the kernel developer perspective it is quite > horrid. The patch adds a vast number of new symbols all into the > existing "bio_" namespace, many of which aren't related to `struct bio' > at all. > > At least, I think that's what's happening. Perhaps the controller > really _is_ designed to track `struct bio'? If so, that's an odd thing > to tell userspace about. > Hmm, how about iotrack-cgroup ? Thanks, -Kame > > > The controller bio-cgroup is used by io-throttle to track writeback IO > > and for properly apply throttling. > > Presumably it tracks all forms of block-based I/O and not just delayed > writeback. > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
