From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753150AbYIBSLS (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:11:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751113AbYIBSLE (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:11:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:57122 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751360AbYIBSLD (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:11:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:06:20 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Andrea Righi Cc: Balbir Singh , Paul Menage , randy.dunlap@oracle.com, Carl Henrik Lunde , Divyesh Shah , eric.rannaud@gmail.com, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, akpm@linux-foundation.org, agk@sourceware.org, subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com, axboe@kernel.dk, Marco Innocenti , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com, matt@bluehost.com, roberto@unbit.it, ngupta@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH -mm 0/5] cgroup: block device i/o controller (v9) 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1219853257-11052-1-git-send-email-righi.andrea@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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