From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dhaval Giani Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:23:48 +0530 Message-ID: <20090911095347.GD4474@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090908170649.GC8828@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090909.150511.112608142.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <20090909105122.GF8828@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090910.165849.104059407.ryov@valinux.co.jp> Reply-To: Dhaval Giani Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090910.165849.104059407.ryov@valinux.co.jp> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ryo Tsuruta Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com, 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 On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:58:49PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote: > Hi, > > Dhaval Giani 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