Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] blkcg, memcg: make blkcg depend on memcg on the default hierarchy

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 05:53:51PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Vivek. > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:42:26PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > I have couple questions about new semantics. Following is my > > understanding. Is it right? > > > > - So after this change one can not use blkio control

Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] blkcg, memcg: make blkcg depend on memcg on the default hierarchy

Hello, Vivek. On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:42:26PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > I have couple questions about new semantics. Following is my > understanding. Is it right? > > - So after this change one can not use blkio controller on unified > hiearchy if memory controller is mounted on some other

Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] blkcg, memcg: make blkcg depend on memcg on the default hierarchy

On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 07:49:07AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > >From 8e67ad03ab03839456816e922c57a7ab3bcf5474 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Tejun Heo > Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:47:57 -0400 > > Currently, the blkio subsystem attributes all of writeback IOs to the > root. One of the issues is th

[PATCH v2 6/6] blkcg, memcg: make blkcg depend on memcg on the default hierarchy

>From 8e67ad03ab03839456816e922c57a7ab3bcf5474 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tejun Heo Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:47:57 -0400 Currently, the blkio subsystem attributes all of writeback IOs to the root. One of the issues is that there's no way to tell who originated a writeback IO from block laye