From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 0/5] cgroup: block device i/o controller (v9) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:06:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20080902180620.GE15847@redhat.com> References: <1219853257-11052-1-git-send-email-righi.andrea@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1219853257-11052-1-git-send-email-righi.andrea-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@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: Andrea Righi Cc: randy.dunlap-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, axboe-tSWWG44O7X1aa/9Udqfwiw@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, ngupta-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, fernando-gVGce1chcLdL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Carl Henrik Lunde , dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, matt-cT2on/YLNlBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, Divyesh Shah , roberto-5KDOxZqKugI@public.gmane.org, agk-9JcytcrH/bA+uJoB2kUjGw@public.gmane.org, Marco Innocenti , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Paul Menage , subrata-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, eric.rannaud-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Balbir Singh List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:07:32PM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote: > > The objective of the i/o controller is to improve i/o performance > predictability of different cgroups sharing the same block devices. > > Respect to other priority/weight-based solutions the approach used by this > controller is to explicitly choke applications' requests that directly (or > indirectly) generate i/o activity in the system. > Hi Andrea, I was checking out the pass discussion on this topic and there seemed to be two kind of people. One who wanted to control max bandwidth and other who liked proportional bandwidth approach (dm-ioband folks). I was just wondering, is it possible to have both the approaches and let users decide at run time which one do they want to use (something like the way users can choose io schedulers). Thanks Vivek