On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:34:53 +0800 Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:21:12 +0200 > > Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> +Example: > >> +* Create an association between an io-throttle group and a bio-cgroup group > >> + with "bio" and "blockio" subsystems mounted in different mount points: > >> + # mount -t cgroup -o bio bio-cgroup /mnt/bio-cgroup/ > >> + # cd /mnt/bio-cgroup/ > >> + # mkdir bio-grp > >> + # cat bio-grp/bio.id > >> + 1 > >> + # mount -t cgroup -o blockio blockio /mnt/io-throttle > >> + # cd /mnt/io-throttle > >> + # mkdir foo > >> + # echo 1 > foo/blockio.bio_id > > > > Why do we need multiple cgroups at once to track I/O ? > > Seems complicated to me. > > Hi Kamezawa-san, > > The original thought to implement this function is for sharing a bio-cgroup > with other subsystems, such as dm-ioband. If the bio-cgroup is already mounted, > and used by dm-ioband or others, we just need to create a association between > io-throttle and bio-cgroup by echo a bio-cgroup id, just like what dm-ioband does. > - Why we need multiple I/O controller ? - Why bio-cgroup cannot be a _pure_ infrastructe as page_cgroup ? - Why we need extra mount ? I have no answer but, IMHO, - only one I/O controller should be enabled at once. - bio cgroup should be tightly coupled with I/O controller and should work as infrastructure i.e. naming/tagging I/O should be automatically done by I/O controller. not by the user's hand. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
