Hi Balbir, Kamezawa-san! On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 17:57 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > >> Tsuruta-san, how about your bio-cgroup's tracking concerning this? > >> If we want to use your tracking functions for each threads seperately, > >> there seems to be a problem. > >> ===cf. mm_get_bio_cgroup()=================== > >> owner > >> mm_struct ----> task_struct ----> bio_cgroup > >> ============================================= > >> In my understanding, the mm_struct of a thread is same as its parent's. > >> So, even if we attach the TIDs of some threads to different cgroups the > >> tracking always returns the same bio_cgroup -- its parent's group. > >> Do you have some policy about in which case we can use your tracking? > >> > > It's will be resitriction when io-controller reuse information of the owner > > of memory. But if it's very clear who issues I/O (by tracking read/write > > syscall), we may have chance to record the issuer of I/O to page_cgroup > > struct. > > We already do some tracking (at dirty time, IIRC) for task IO accounting. For > the memory controller, tasks are virtually grouped by the mm_struct. Thank you for your comments and the links. When it comes to io-tracking such mm_struct-based grouping might not desirable. If everyone agrees, we could try to decouple bio cgroup from that memory controller-specific bits. - Fernando _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
