From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761020AbZENQoR (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2009 12:44:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753768AbZENQn6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2009 12:43:58 -0400 Received: from e28smtp06.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.6]:59876 "EHLO e28smtp06.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753819AbZENQn5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 May 2009 12:43:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:13:49 +0530 From: Dhaval Giani To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Andrea Righi , Andrew Morton , 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, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, agk@redhat.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, snitzer@redhat.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, peterz@infradead.org, Bharata B Rao Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2 Message-ID: <20090514164349.GA22833@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Dhaval Giani 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090508215618.GJ7293@redhat.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 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