From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: RFC: I/O bandwidth controller Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:48:08 -0700 Message-ID: <1218037688.10907.85.camel@nimitz> References: <20080804.175126.193692178.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <1217870433.20260.101.camel@nimitz> <1217985189.3154.57.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> <20080806.151824.104049463.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <1218004892.3950.12.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1218004892.3950.12.camel-xpvPi5bcW5X5OjGIXfuPlhrrLbDL3r4M6qtp775pBPw@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Fernando Luis =?ISO-8859-1?Q?V=E1zquez?= Cao Cc: xen-devel-GuqFBffKawuULHF6PoxzQEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org, uchida-LYU95VJlayp8UrSeD/g0lQ@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, virtualization-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, agk-9JcytcrH/bA+uJoB2kUjGw@public.gmane.org, ngupta-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, righi.andrea-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 +0900, Fernando Luis V=E1zquez Cao wrote: > > I agree with your plan. > > We keep bio-cgroup improving and porting to the latest kernel. > Having more users of bio-cgroup would probably help to get it merged, so > we'll certainly send patches as soon as we get our cfq prototype in > shape. I'm confused. Are these two of the competing controllers? Or are the complementary in some way? -- Dave From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763672AbYHFPxs (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:53:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756899AbYHFPsP (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:48:15 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:42340 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754061AbYHFPsO (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:48:14 -0400 Subject: Re: RFC: I/O bandwidth controller From: Dave Hansen To: Fernando Luis =?ISO-8859-1?Q?V=E1zquez?= Cao Cc: Ryo Tsuruta , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, agk@sourceware.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, ngupta@google.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1218004892.3950.12.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> References: <20080804.175126.193692178.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <1217870433.20260.101.camel@nimitz> <1217985189.3154.57.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> <20080806.151824.104049463.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <1218004892.3950.12.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:48:08 -0700 Message-Id: <1218037688.10907.85.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 +0900, Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote: > > I agree with your plan. > > We keep bio-cgroup improving and porting to the latest kernel. > Having more users of bio-cgroup would probably help to get it merged, so > we'll certainly send patches as soon as we get our cfq prototype in > shape. I'm confused. Are these two of the competing controllers? Or are the complementary in some way? -- Dave