Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754949Ab2BQWjF (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:39:05 -0500 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:54583 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752450Ab2BQWjD (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:39:03 -0500 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of htejun@gmail.com designates 10.68.216.195 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=htejun@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=htejun@gmail.com Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:38:59 -0800 From: Tejun Heo To: Vivek Goyal Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, ctalbott@google.com, rni@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kent Overstreet Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] block: implement bio_associate_current() Message-ID: <20120217223859.GM29414@google.com> References: <1329431878-28300-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1329431878-28300-8-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <20120217213313.GG26620@redhat.com> <20120217220351.GI29414@google.com> <20120217222909.GI26620@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120217222909.GI26620@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 Content-Length: 1688 Lines: 42 Hello, On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:29:09PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > Don't we already keep track of task changing cgroup and record that > state in ioc. > > blkiocg_attach() > ioc_cgroup_changed() > > I think in ioc_cgroup_changed() we can just drop the reference to previous > blkcg and store reference to new blkcg? Hmmm.... right, we have that; then, why doesn't cgroup change take effect w/ cfq? Maybe it actually works and I confused it with stacking failure. Will test again later. But, anyways, ioc isn't keeping track of blkcg. The changed thing is necessary only because cfq is caching the relationship as associated cfqqs. I think it would be better if cfq can just compare the current blkcg without requiring the async notification (or at least do it synchronously). The current way of handling it is kinda nasty. > BTW, this change seems to be completely orthogonal to blkcg cleanup. May > be it is a good idea to split it out in a separate patch series. It has > nothing to do with rcu cleanup in blkcg. At first, it required the locking update because I was determining blkg association on bio issue and then passing it down. That didn't work with cfq caching the association, so it no longer has dependency. It should can be a separate patchset. This whole lot is gonna go in as long sequential series of patches so I'm splitting them just so that each posting isn't too huge at this point. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/