On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 03:29:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton 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. > > > > 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. For the general case bio-cgroup tracks all forms of block IO, in this particular case (only for the io-throttle controller) I used bio-cgroup to track writeback IO. Synchronous IO is accounted directly in submit_bio() and throttled as well, imposing explicit sleeps via schedule_timeout_killable(). -Andrea _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
