[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A0440B2.7040300@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 10:24:50 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
CC: vgoyal@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, nauman@...gle.com,
dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com, mikew@...gle.com,
fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, 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, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2
Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
>
>> Ryo, dm-ioband breaks the notion of classes and priority of CFQ because
>> of FIFO dispatch of buffered bios. Apart from that it tries to provide
>> fairness in terms of actual IO done and that would mean a seeky workload
>> will can use disk for much longer to get equivalent IO done and slow down
>> other applications. Implementing IO controller at IO scheduler level gives
>> us tigher control. Will it not meet your requirements? If you got specific
>> concerns with IO scheduler based contol patches, please highlight these and
>> we will see how these can be addressed.
>
> I'd like to avoid making complicated existing IO schedulers and other
> kernel codes and to give a choice to users whether or not to use it.
> I know that you chose an approach that using compile time options to
> get the same behavior as old system, but device-mapper drivers can be
> added, removed and replaced while system is running.
I do not believe that every use of cgroups will end up with
a separate logical volume for each group.
In fact, if you look at group-per-UID usage, which could be
quite common on shared web servers and shell servers, I would
expect all the groups to share the same filesystem.
I do not believe dm-ioband would be useful in that configuration,
while the IO scheduler based IO controller will just work.
--
All rights reversed.
--
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