From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dhaval Giani Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2 Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:13:49 +0530 Message-ID: <20090514164349.GA22833@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090506213453.GC4282@linux> <20090506215235.GJ8180@redhat.com> <20090507090450.GA4613@linux> <20090507141126.GA9463@redhat.com> <20090507144501.GB9463@redhat.com> <20090507153642.GC9463@redhat.com> <20090507221900.GA29774@linux> <20090508180951.GG7293@redhat.com> <20090508200458.GA3708@linux> <20090508215618.GJ7293@redhat.com> Reply-To: Dhaval Giani Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090508215618.GJ7293-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@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: Vivek Goyal Cc: snitzer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, paolo.valente-rcYM44yAMweonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org, fernando-gVGce1chcLdL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org, jmoyer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Bharata B Rao , fchecconi-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Andrea Righi List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 05:56:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > So, we shall have to come up with something better, I think Dhaval was > implementing upper limit for cpu controller. May be PeterZ and Dhaval can > give us some pointers how did they manage to implement both proportional > and max bw control with the help of a single tree while maintaining the > notion of prio with-in cgroup. > > PeterZ/Dhaval ^^^^^^^^ > We still haven't :). I think the idea is to keep fairness (or propotion) between the groups that are currently running. The throttled groups should not be considered. thanks, -- regards, Dhaval