From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760884Ab2D0RZ0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:25:26 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f51.google.com ([209.85.210.51]:52253 "EHLO mail-pz0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760552Ab2D0RZY (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:25:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:25:19 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Jeff Moyer , axboe@kernel.dk, ctalbott@google.com, rni@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, fengguang.wu@intel.com, hughd@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, "Daniel P. Berrange" Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] blkcg: implement per-blkg request allocation 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120427172110.GM10579@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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