On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 03:02:09PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 5:51 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:10:38 -0500 > > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 12:30:21AM -0500, Ben Blum wrote: > >> > Convert blk-cgroup to be buildable as a module > >> > > >> > From: Ben Blum <bblum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > This patch modifies the Block I/O cgroup subsystem to be able to be built as a > >> > module. As the CFQ disk scheduler optionally depends on blk-cgroup, config > >> > options in block/Kconfig, block/Kconfig.iosched, and block/blk-cgroup.h are > >> > enhanced to support the new module dependency. > >> > > >> > >> Hi Ben, > >> > >> I will give this patch a try. > >> > >> So from blk-cgroup perspective, the advantage of allowing it as module > >> will be that we can save some memory if we are not using the controller? > >> > > Is "moduled" blkio cgroup safe after page-tracking by page_cgroup is > > introduced ? > > > > My guess is it won't be, unless we start exposing page_cgroup API and > then make the module depend on memcg. I think I agree. When we introduce page_cgroup based page tracking, either we need to export page_cgroup API or we can force blkio controller to compile as in-kernel if user selects the CONFIG_PAGE_TRACKING option. So as of now, I can't think why we should not we allow compiling blkio as module as long as core cgroup functionality supports it safely. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
