Re: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:29:37 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:21:14 +0200
> Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Subject: [PATCH 3/9] bio-cgroup controller
> 
> Sorry, but I have to register extreme distress at the name of this. 
> The term "bio" is well-established in the kernel and here we have a new
> definition for the same term: "block I/O".
> 
> "bio" was a fine term for you to have chosen from the user's
> perspective, but from the kernel developer perspective it is quite
> horrid.  The patch adds a vast number of new symbols all into the
> existing "bio_" namespace, many of which aren't related to `struct bio'
> at all.
> 
> At least, I think that's what's happening.  Perhaps the controller
> really _is_ designed to track `struct bio'?  If so, that's an odd thing
> to tell userspace about.
> 
Hmm, how about iotrack-cgroup ?

Thanks,
-Kame


> 
> > The controller bio-cgroup is used by io-throttle to track writeback IO
> > and for properly apply throttling.
> 
> Presumably it tracks all forms of block-based I/O and not just delayed
> writeback.
> 
> 
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/