From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758821AbZEEWWd (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 18:22:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754124AbZEEWWY (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 18:22:24 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:43953 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754086AbZEEWWX (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 18:22:23 -0400 Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Andrew Morton Cc: Vivek Goyal , nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, jens.axboe@oracle.com, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, taka@valinux.co.jp, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, righi.andrea@gmail.com, agk@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com In-Reply-To: <20090505132441.1705bfad.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1241553525-28095-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <20090505132441.1705bfad.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 00:20:49 +0200 Message-Id: <1241562049.11059.921.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2009 15:58:27 -0400 > Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > Here is the V2 of the IO controller patches generated on top of 2.6.30-rc4. > > ... > > Currently primarily two other IO controller proposals are out there. > > > > dm-ioband > > --------- > > This patch set is from Ryo Tsuruta from valinux. > > ... > > IO-throttling > > ------------- > > This patch set is from Andrea Righi provides max bandwidth controller. > > I'm thinking we need to lock you guys in a room and come back in 15 minutes. > > Seriously, how are we to resolve this? We could lock me in a room and > cmoe back in 15 days, but there's no reason to believe that I'd emerge > with the best answer. > > I tend to think that a cgroup-based controller is the way to go. > Anything else will need to be wired up to cgroups _anyway_, and that > might end up messy. FWIW I subscribe to the io-scheduler faith as opposed to the device-mapper cult ;-) Also, I don't think a simple throttle will be very useful, a more mature solution should cater to more use cases.