Re: [Lsf] IO less throttling and cgroup aware writeback (Was: Re: Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF)

Vivek Goyal
2011-04-06T15:40:31Z

On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 07:49:25AM -0700, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote:

[..]
> > Can someone describe a valid shared inode use case? If not, we
> > should not even consider it as a requirement and explicitly document
> > it as a "not supported" use case.
>
> At the very least, when a task is moved from one cgroup to another,
> we've got a shared inode case. This probably won't happen more than
> once for most tasks, but it will likely be common.

I am hoping that for such cases sooner or later inode movement will
automatically take place. At some point of time, inode will be clean
and no more on memcg_bdi list. And when it is dirtied again, I am
hoping it will be queued on new groups's list and not on old group's
list? Greg?

Thanks
Vivek