From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:53:31 -0400 Message-ID: <20080924145331.GD547@redhat.com> References: <20080919131019.GA3606@redhat.com> <20080922.183651.62951479.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20080922143042.GA19222@redhat.com> <20080924.193414.22923673.taka@valinux.co.jp> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080924.193414.22923673.taka@valinux.co.jp> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Hirokazu Takahashi Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com, agk@sourceware.org, xemul@openvz.org, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 07:34:14PM +0900, Hirokazu Takahashi wrote: > Hi, > > > > It's possible the algorithm of dm-ioband can be placed in the block layer > > > if it is really a big problem. > > > But I doubt it can control every control block I/O as we wish since > > > the interface the cgroup supports is quite poor. > > > > Had a question regarding cgroup interface. I am assuming that in a system, > > one will be using other controllers as well apart from IO-controller. > > Other controllers will be using cgroup as a grouping mechanism. > > Now coming up with additional grouping mechanism for only io-controller seems > > little odd to me. It will make the job of higher level management software > > harder. > > > > Looking at the dm-ioband grouping examples given in patches, I think cases > > of grouping based in pid, pgrp, uid and kvm can be handled by creating right > > cgroup and making sure applications are launched/moved into right cgroup by > > user space tools. > > Grouping in pid, pgrp and uid is not the point, which I've been thinking > can be replaced with cgroup once the implementation of bio-cgroup is done. > > I think problems of cgroup are that they can't support lots of storages > and hotplug devices, it just handle them as if they were just one resource. > I don't insist the interface of dm-ioband is the best. I just hope the > cgroup infrastructure support this kind of resources. > Sorry, I did not understand fully. Can you please explain in detail what kind of situation will not be covered by cgroup interface. Thanks Vivek From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753025AbYIXOy7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:54:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751337AbYIXOyw (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:54:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:49736 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750991AbYIXOyv (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:54:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:53:31 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Hirokazu Takahashi Cc: ryov@valinux.co.jp, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@openvz.org, agk@sourceware.org, righi.andrea@gmail.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com Subject: Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks Message-ID: <20080924145331.GD547@redhat.com> References: <20080919131019.GA3606@redhat.com> <20080922.183651.62951479.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20080922143042.GA19222@redhat.com> <20080924.193414.22923673.taka@valinux.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080924.193414.22923673.taka@valinux.co.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 07:34:14PM +0900, Hirokazu Takahashi wrote: > Hi, > > > > It's possible the algorithm of dm-ioband can be placed in the block layer > > > if it is really a big problem. > > > But I doubt it can control every control block I/O as we wish since > > > the interface the cgroup supports is quite poor. > > > > Had a question regarding cgroup interface. I am assuming that in a system, > > one will be using other controllers as well apart from IO-controller. > > Other controllers will be using cgroup as a grouping mechanism. > > Now coming up with additional grouping mechanism for only io-controller seems > > little odd to me. It will make the job of higher level management software > > harder. > > > > Looking at the dm-ioband grouping examples given in patches, I think cases > > of grouping based in pid, pgrp, uid and kvm can be handled by creating right > > cgroup and making sure applications are launched/moved into right cgroup by > > user space tools. > > Grouping in pid, pgrp and uid is not the point, which I've been thinking > can be replaced with cgroup once the implementation of bio-cgroup is done. > > I think problems of cgroup are that they can't support lots of storages > and hotplug devices, it just handle them as if they were just one resource. > I don't insist the interface of dm-ioband is the best. I just hope the > cgroup infrastructure support this kind of resources. > Sorry, I did not understand fully. Can you please explain in detail what kind of situation will not be covered by cgroup interface. Thanks Vivek