linux-kernel - Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 06 May 2009 00:20:49 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, 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
Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2

On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.

FWIW I subscribe to the io-scheduler faith as opposed to the
device-mapper cult ;-)

Also, I don't think a simple throttle will be very useful, a more mature
solution should cater to more use cases.


--
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/