[Devel] Re: [PATCH 1/9] io-throttle documentation

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:34:53 +0800
Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng at cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:21:12 +0200
> > Andrea Righi <righi.andrea at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> +Example:
> >> +* Create an association between an io-throttle group and a bio-cgroup group
> >> +  with "bio" and "blockio" subsystems mounted in different mount points:
> >> +  # mount -t cgroup -o bio bio-cgroup /mnt/bio-cgroup/
> >> +  # cd /mnt/bio-cgroup/
> >> +  # mkdir bio-grp
> >> +  # cat bio-grp/bio.id
> >> +  1
> >> +  # mount -t cgroup -o blockio blockio /mnt/io-throttle
> >> +  # cd /mnt/io-throttle
> >> +  # mkdir foo
> >> +  # echo 1 > foo/blockio.bio_id
> > 
> > Why do we need multiple cgroups at once to track I/O ?
> > Seems complicated to me.
> 
>   Hi Kamezawa-san,
> 
>   The original thought to implement this function is for sharing a bio-cgroup
>   with other subsystems, such as dm-ioband. If the bio-cgroup is already mounted,
>   and used by dm-ioband or others, we just need to create a association between 
>   io-throttle and bio-cgroup by echo a bio-cgroup id, just like what dm-ioband does.
> 

- Why we need multiple I/O controller ? 
- Why bio-cgroup cannot be a _pure_ infrastructe as page_cgroup ?
- Why we need extra mount ?

I have no answer but, IMHO, 
 - only one I/O controller should be enabled at once.
 - bio cgroup should be tightly coupled with I/O controller and should work as
   infrastructure i.e. naming/tagging I/O should be automatically done by
   I/O controller. not by the user's hand.

Thanks,
-Kame


_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers