From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758025AbZEEUiq (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 16:38:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753328AbZEEUig (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 16:38:36 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:45238 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753476AbZEEUig (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 16:38:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:24:41 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Vivek Goyal Cc: 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, vgoyal@redhat.com Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2 Message-Id: <20090505132441.1705bfad.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1241553525-28095-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> References: <1241553525-28095-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.