[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090514164349.GA22833@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:13:49 +0530
From: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <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, ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp,
s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, taka@...inux.co.jp,
guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, agk@...hat.com,
dm-devel@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com,
peterz@...radead.org, Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 05:56:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So, we shall have to come up with something better, I think Dhaval was
> implementing upper limit for cpu controller. May be PeterZ and Dhaval can
> give us some pointers how did they manage to implement both proportional
> and max bw control with the help of a single tree while maintaining the
> notion of prio with-in cgroup.
>
> PeterZ/Dhaval ^^^^^^^^
>
We still haven't :). I think the idea is to keep fairness (or
propotion) between the groups that are currently running. The throttled
groups should not be considered.
thanks,
--
regards,
Dhaval
--
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