[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:24:41 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp,
s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, taka@...inux.co.jp,
guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, righi.andrea@...il.com,
agk@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2
On Tue, 5 May 2009 15:58:27 -0400
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Here is the V2 of the IO controller patches generated on top of 2.6.30-rc4.
> ...
> Currently primarily two other IO controller proposals are out there.
>
> dm-ioband
> ---------
> This patch set is from Ryo Tsuruta from valinux.
> ...
> IO-throttling
> -------------
> This patch set is from Andrea Righi provides max bandwidth controller.
I'm thinking we need to lock you guys in a room and come back in 15 minutes.
Seriously, how are we to resolve this? We could lock me in a room and
cmoe back in 15 days, but there's no reason to believe that I'd emerge
with the best answer.
I tend to think that a cgroup-based controller is the way to go.
Anything else will need to be wired up to cgroups _anyway_, and that
might end up messy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists