[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090421.211827.39163016.ryov@valinux.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:18:27 +0900 (JST)
From: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
To: vgoyal@...hat.com
Cc: nauman@...gle.com, fernando@....ntt.co.jp,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jmoyer@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com, agk@...hat.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@...il.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: dm-ioband: Test results.
Hi Vivek,
> > I could see the priority inversion by running Vivek's script and I
> > understand how RT requests has to be handled. I'll create a patch
> > which makes dm-ioband cooperates with CFQ scheduler. However, do you
> > think we need some kind of limitation on processes which belong to the
> > RT class to prevent the processes from depleting bandwidth?
>
> I think to begin with, we can keep the same behavior as CFQ. An RT task
> can starve other tasks.
>
> But we should provide two configurations and user can choose any one.
> If RT task is in root group, it will starve other sibling tasks/groups. If
> it is with-in a cgroup, then it will starve its sibling only with-in that
> cgroup and will not impact other cgroups.
>
> What I mean is following.
>
> root
> / \
> RT group1
>
> In above configuration RT task will starve everybody else.
>
> root
> / \
> group1 group2
> / \
> RT BE
>
> In above configuration RT task will starve only sibling in group1 but
> will not starve the tasks in group2 or in root.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try this way when dm-ioband supports
hierarchical grouping.
Thanks,
Ryo Tsuruta
--
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