From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dhaval Giani Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 22:36:49 +0530 Message-ID: <20090908170649.GC8828@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090904231129.GA3689@redhat.com> <20090907.200222.193693062.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <4AA51065.6050000@redhat.com> <20090908.120119.71095369.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <20090908134244.GA15974@redhat.com> Reply-To: Dhaval Giani Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090908134244.GA15974@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Ryo Tsuruta , riel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, agk@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nauman@google.com, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids > > - dm-ioband can use without cgroup. (I remember Vivek said it's not an > > advantage.) > > I think this is more of a disadvantage than advantage. We have a very well > defined functionality of cgroup in kernel to group the tasks. Now you are > coming up with your own method of grouping the tasks which will make life > even more confusing for users and application writers. > I would tend to agree with this. With other resource management controllers using cgroups, having dm-ioband use something different will require a different set of userspace tools/libraries to be used. Something that will severly limit its usefulness froma programmer's perspective. thanks, -- regards, Dhaval