On 08/18/2013 11:59 PM, Gao feng wrote:
kernel had changed the minimum weight of device blkio from
100 to 10 in commit df457f845e5449be2e7d96668791f789b3770ac7.
commit df457f845e5449be2e7d96668791f789b3770ac7
Author: Justin TerAvest <teravest(a)google.com>
Date: Tue Mar 8 19:45:00 2011 +0100
blk-cgroup: Lower minimum weight from 100 to 10.
We've found that we still get good, useful isolation at weights this
low. I'd like to adjust the minimum so that any other changes can take
these values into account.
Signed-off-by: Justin TerAvest <teravest(a)google.com>
Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal(a)redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jaxboe(a)fusionio.com>
libvirt should comport with kernel.
Signed-off-by: Gao feng <gaofeng(a)cn.fujitsu.com>
---
docs/formatdomain.html.in | 4 ++--
src/util/vircgroup.c | 10 +++++-----
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
What happens when running a newer libvirt with an older kernel? Or in
other words, what error message do you get if you pass a limit lower
than the current kernel can support? I want to make sure the message
looks sane to an end-user before accepting this patch.
- if (weight && (weight > 1000 || weight < 100)) {
+ if (weight && (weight > 1000 || weight < 10)) {
virReportError(VIR_ERR_INVALID_ARG,
- _("weight '%u' must be in range (100, 1000)"),
+ _("weight '%u' must be in range (10, 1000)"),
weight);
return -1;
In other words, I suspect this code needs to be beefed up to actually
probe whether the kernel accepted the change, rather than blindly doing
the filter ourselves and hoping that it was correct.
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library
http://libvirt.org