Hey, Suresh. On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 04:46:43PM +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote: > > And I think tejun wanted to implement throttling at block layer and > > wanted vm to adjust/respond to per group IO backlog when it comes > > to writting to dirty data/inodes. > > > > Once we have take care of writeback problem then comes the issue > > of being able to associate a dirty inode/page to a cgroup. Not sure > > if something has happened on that front or not. In the past it was > > thought to be simple that one inode belongs to one IO cgroup. > > Yes, this was discussed last year. But, not so much happened AFAIK. Yeah, mostly because there were many more pressing issues around cgroup and blkcg. Hierarchical support for cfq is now pending and a lot of the foundation work for unified hierarchy (which IMHO is essential for sane interaction between memcg and blkcg for writeback) has been done, so it's getting there. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
