From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] blkcg: implement per-blkg request allocation Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:25:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20120427172519.GB26595@google.com> References: <1335477561-11131-12-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20120427150217.GK27486@google.com> <20120427154033.GJ10579@redhat.com> <20120427154502.GM27486@google.com> <20120427154841.GA16237@redhat.com> <20120427155140.GN27486@google.com> <20120427155612.GK10579@redhat.com> <20120427162012.GP27486@google.com> <20120427172110.GM10579@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=qbI/DFThB4jpgPsnhDq/9L2G6BrBGg6TVkyaUimKswg=; b=Y48v5IUVTDLogAJ7NBsPKSzmShDKfmhtwgf2E2jfDCz8nzA/njLtvqtUPPvo9ljkl8 eliRIkqhVcFqXX+/UfdORmG0w9d9pyihAd5tYXoydIsucAfsos1m1YnA+fLyyPmrusWc Y5dAUuLHW9wjd/T9094a0diKrtnsAp4eTZd8xHy9Wl1pEuEk3JLnUzoj+IjFS0nav1KN Y6i39f1N1I8KvCLYZD54Nd6vNr1ylgJ0/7Lrs8INZeY6eNl/HtdtMOOjg2ttp94tfq4c 64QcAf/ckrTqoR0ujstt+kLanVl3RjY6XsfvW/9086ef61ORxnTLNo23Nb7g6EoHoy8C /XPA== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120427172110.GM10579-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Jeff Moyer , axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org, ctalbott-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, rni-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, fengguang.wu-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, hughd-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, "Daniel P. Berrange" Hello, On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:21:10PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > For non-priviliged users, something along the lines of per session > cpu autogroup might make sense. But even then if some IO is submitted > from that autoblkgroup, kernel can't claim that memory till IO is > completed. > > So per cgroup number of request will probably be a problem even if > kenrel managed those completely. My point was that trying to solve all the policy decisions in kernel proper is not a very good idea. > So are you planning to put a patch in kernel to disallow cgroup creation > for non-priviliged users? No, I'm not gonna break the current users. It's just not the direction I want to take cgroup towards and the current breakages will remain broken. Thanks. -- tejun