From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:08:16 -0600 Message-ID: <9b55ca3d-cca5-50ae-4085-5a1866f77308@kernel.dk> References: <20200528135444.11508-1-schatzberg.dan@gmail.com> <20200821150405.GA4137@dschatzberg-fedora-PC0Y6AEN.dhcp.thefacebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cATovcDF6EIIZdeZ6DTsdMSJEoMk6qL5T5u7Q6ei1rg=; b=jP8jPmAII5A/BaqiPZZXBQ/0nb55IKsHNPaIJCOCI9t3wpmalgbB3xtv+ZoD/sHlfF P+2P1a6l/tNo3CGG6rHSJOb2IyuNmPFeHlVWbqMcSNj1CfYxBRCcIrHXmxjgYLGee9X+ U8S1nzS4XZPZ/BE4wN0ErVYadwOoNpmLpOool5rbLR3DdGUsHEPU4tGcNEpum1JuZxOz m+02WpKlWQtfgjk6LTzXRBBSat40NNh3PIKAvsnsTHx+V6B91HpRAinkxOylKxG+3bCN anLuNaN4N8xemHqYfRg4R+bxjkc6kGr5zSL4J420RagQmWnaJQ9IPgk4EFIg6Qw4I3lE eM/A== In-Reply-To: <20200821150405.GA4137-fkkBeQb8ge2DK6JXYb2XlJM2KBzDZLgSYRRNvcr/Vuo4Aut8bSbYrdcQFCl+OI4i@public.gmane.org> Content-Language: en-US Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Dan Schatzberg , Shakeel Butt Cc: Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , Amir Goldstein , Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Vladimir Davydov , Andrew Morton , Hugh Dickins , Roman Gushchin , Chris Down , Yang Shi , Thomas Gleixner , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Ingo Molnar , Mathieu Desnoyers , Andrea Arcangeli , "open list:BLOCK LAYER" , open list On 8/21/20 9:04 AM, Dan Schatzberg wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:06:44AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: >> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:55 AM Dan Schatzberg wrote: >>> >>> Much of the discussion about this has died down. There's been a >>> concern raised that we could generalize infrastructure across loop, >>> md, etc. This may be possible, in the future, but it isn't clear to me >>> how this would look like. I'm inclined to fix the existing issue with >>> loop devices now (this is a problem we hit at FB) and address >>> consolidation with other cases if and when those need to be addressed. >>> >> >> What's the status of this series? > > Thanks for reminding me about this. I haven't got any further > feedback. I'll bug Jens to take a look and see if he has any concerns > and if not send a rebased version. No immediate concerns, I think rebasing and sending one against the current tree is probably a good idea. Then we can hopefully get it queued up for 5.10. -- Jens Axboe