[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090911095347.GD4474@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:23:48 +0530
From: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
Cc: vgoyal@...hat.com, riel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, jens.axboe@...cle.com, agk@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, nauman@...gle.com,
guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:58:49PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > I know that cgroup is a very well defined functionality, that is why
> > > dm-ioband also supports throttling per cgroup. But how are we supposed
> > > to do throttling on the system which doesn't support cgroup?
> > > As I wrote in another mail to Vivek, I would like to make use of
> > > dm-ioband on RHEL 5.x.
> >
> > Hi Ryo,
> >
> > I am not sure that upstream should really be worrying about RHEL 5.x.
> > cgroups is a relatively mature solution and is available in most (if not
> > all) community distros today. We really should not be looking at another
> > grouping solution if the sole reason is that then dm-ioband can be used
> > on RHEL 5.x. The correct solution would be to maintain a separate patch
> > for RHEL 5.x then and not to burden the upstream kernel.
>
> RHEL 5.x is not the sole reason for that.
>
Could you please enumerate the other reasons for pushing in another
grouping mechanism then? (Why can we not resolve them via cgroups?)
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