From: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
nauman@google.com, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmoyer@redhat.com,
jens.axboe@oracle.com, agk@redhat.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: dm-ioband: Test results.
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:50:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49EE69C2.9030908@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090421141607.GA22619@redhat.com>
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:57:23AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21 2009 at 8:10am -0400,
>> Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Nauman,
>>>
>>>>> The real question is, once you create a version of dm-ioband that
>>>>> co-operates with CFQ scheduler, how that solution would compare with
>>>>> the patch set Vivek has posted? In my opinion, we need to converge to
>>>>> one solution as soon as possible, so that we can work on it together
>>>>> to refine and test it.
>>>> I think I can do some help for your work. but I want to continue the
>>>> development of dm-ioband, because dm-ioband actually works well and
>>>> I think it has some advantages against other IO controllers.
>>>> - It can use without cgroup.
>>>> - It can control bandwidth on a per partition basis.
>>>> - The driver module can be replaced without stopping the system.
>>> In addition, dm-ioband can run on the RHEL5.
>> RHEL5 compatibility does not matter relative to merging an I/O bandwidth
>> controller upstream. So both the "can [be] use without cgroup" and "can
>> run on RHEL5" features do not help your cause of getting dm-ioband
>> merged upstream. In fact these features serve as distractions.
>
> Exactly. I don't think that "it can be used without cgroup" is a feature
> or advantage. To me it is a disadvantage and should be fixed. cgroup is
> standard mechanism to group tasks arbitrarily and we should use that to make
> things working instead of coming up with own ways of grouping things and
> terming it as advantage.
>
I agree. And for the case of cpu scheduler, there are user group scheduler
and cgroup group scheduler, but Peter said he would like to see user group
scheduler to be removed.
> What do you mean by "The driver module can be replaced without stopping
> the system"? I guess you mean that one does not have to reboot the system
> to remove ioband device? So if one decides to not use the cgroup, then
> one shall have to remove the ioband devices, remount the filesystems and
> restart the application?
>
> With cgroup approach, if one does not want things to be classified, a user
> can simply move all the tasks to root group and things will be fine. No
> remounting, no application stopping etc. So this also does not look like
> an advantage instead sounds like an disadvantage.
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-22 0:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-13 4:05 dm-ioband: Test results Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-13 14:46 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-13 14:46 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-14 2:49 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-14 2:49 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-14 5:27 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-14 9:30 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-14 9:30 ` [dm-devel] " Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-15 17:04 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-15 17:04 ` [dm-devel] " Vivek Goyal
2009-04-16 12:56 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-16 12:56 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-16 13:32 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-16 13:32 ` [dm-devel] " Vivek Goyal
2009-04-15 4:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-15 4:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-15 13:38 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-15 14:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-15 14:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-15 16:17 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-15 16:17 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-16 2:47 ` [dm-devel] " Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-16 14:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-16 14:11 ` [dm-devel] " Vivek Goyal
2009-04-16 20:24 ` Nauman Rafique
2009-04-20 8:29 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-20 8:29 ` [dm-devel] " Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-20 9:07 ` Nauman Rafique
2009-04-21 12:06 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-21 12:10 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-21 12:10 ` [dm-devel] " Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-21 13:57 ` Mike Snitzer
2009-04-21 13:57 ` Mike Snitzer
2009-04-21 14:16 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-21 14:16 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-22 0:50 ` Li Zefan [this message]
2009-04-22 3:14 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-22 3:14 ` [dm-devel] " Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-22 15:18 ` Mike Snitzer
2009-04-22 15:18 ` Mike Snitzer
2009-04-27 10:30 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-27 10:30 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-27 12:44 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-27 12:44 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-27 13:03 ` Mike Snitzer
2009-04-27 13:03 ` Mike Snitzer
2009-04-20 21:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-20 21:37 ` [dm-devel] " Vivek Goyal
2009-04-21 12:18 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-16 20:57 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-16 20:57 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-17 2:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-17 2:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-17 2:28 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-17 2:28 ` Vivek Goyal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49EE69C2.9030908@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nauman@google.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.