From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: Too many I/O controller patches Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:04:59 +0530 Message-ID: <48974BD3.6050503@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20080804.175126.193692178.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <1217870433.20260.101.camel@nimitz> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1217870433.20260.101.camel@nimitz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Hansen Cc: Ryo Tsuruta , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, agk@sourceware.org, Andrea Righi List-Id: dm-devel.ids Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 17:51 +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote: >> This series of patches of dm-ioband now includes "The bio tracking mechanism," >> which has been posted individually to this mailing list. >> This makes it easy for anybody to control the I/O bandwidth even when >> the I/O is one of delayed-write requests. > > During the Containers mini-summit at OLS, it was mentioned that there > are at least *FOUR* of these I/O controllers floating around. Have you > talked to the other authors? (I've cc'd at least one of them). > > We obviously can't come to any kind of real consensus with people just > tossing the same patches back and forth. Ryo and Andrea - Naveen and Satoshi met up at OLS and discussed their approach. It would be really nice to see an RFC, I know Andrea did work on this and compared the approaches. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL