Re: dm-ioband: Test results.

[Mike Snitzer]

On Mon, Apr 27 2009 at  6:30am -0400,
Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> > Why is it that you repeatedly ignore concern/discussion about your
> > determination to continue using a custom grouping mechanism?  It is this
> > type of excess layering that serves no purpose other than to facilitate
> > out-of-tree use-cases.  dm-ioband would take a big step closer to being
> > merged upstream if you took others' feedback and showed more willingness
> > to work through the outstanding issues.
> 
> I think dm-ioband's approach is one simple way to handle cgroup
> because the current cgroup has no way to manage kernel module's
> resources. Please tell me if you have any good ideas to handle 
> cgroup by dm-ioband.

If you'd like to keep dm-ioband modular then I'd say the appropriate
cgroup interfaces need to be exposed for module use (symbols exported,
etc).  No other controller has had a need to be modular but if you think
it is requirement for dm-ioband (facilitate updates, etc) then I have to
believe it is doable.

Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/