From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: RFC: I/O bandwidth controller Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:48:08 -0700 Message-ID: <1218037688.10907.85.camel@nimitz> References: <20080804.175126.193692178.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <1217870433.20260.101.camel@nimitz> <1217985189.3154.57.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> <20080806.151824.104049463.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <1218004892.3950.12.camel@sebastian.kern.oss.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1218004892.3950.12.camel-xpvPi5bcW5X5OjGIXfuPlhrrLbDL3r4M6qtp775pBPw@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Fernando Luis =?ISO-8859-1?Q?V=E1zquez?= Cao Cc: xen-devel-GuqFBffKawuULHF6PoxzQEEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org, uchida-LYU95VJlayp8UrSeD/g0lQ@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, virtualization-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, agk-9JcytcrH/bA+uJoB2kUjGw@public.gmane.org, ngupta-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, righi.andrea-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 +0900, Fernando Luis V=E1zquez Cao wrote: > > I agree with your plan. > > We keep bio-cgroup improving and porting to the latest kernel. > Having more users of bio-cgroup would probably help to get it merged, so > we'll certainly send patches as soon as we get our cfq prototype in > shape. I'm confused. Are these two of the competing controllers? Or are the complementary in some way? -- Dave