From: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
nauman@google.com, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmoyer@redhat.com,
jens.axboe@oracle.com, agk@redhat.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: dm-ioband: Test results.
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:50:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49EE69C2.9030908@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090421141607.GA22619@redhat.com>
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:57:23AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21 2009 at 8:10am -0400,
>> Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@valinux.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Nauman,
>>>
>>>>> The real question is, once you create a version of dm-ioband that
>>>>> co-operates with CFQ scheduler, how that solution would compare with
>>>>> the patch set Vivek has posted? In my opinion, we need to converge to
>>>>> one solution as soon as possible, so that we can work on it together
>>>>> to refine and test it.
>>>> I think I can do some help for your work. but I want to continue the
>>>> development of dm-ioband, because dm-ioband actually works well and
>>>> I think it has some advantages against other IO controllers.
>>>> - It can use without cgroup.
>>>> - It can control bandwidth on a per partition basis.
>>>> - The driver module can be replaced without stopping the system.
>>> In addition, dm-ioband can run on the RHEL5.
>> RHEL5 compatibility does not matter relative to merging an I/O bandwidth
>> controller upstream. So both the "can [be] use without cgroup" and "can
>> run on RHEL5" features do not help your cause of getting dm-ioband
>> merged upstream. In fact these features serve as distractions.
>
> Exactly. I don't think that "it can be used without cgroup" is a feature
> or advantage. To me it is a disadvantage and should be fixed. cgroup is
> standard mechanism to group tasks arbitrarily and we should use that to make
> things working instead of coming up with own ways of grouping things and
> terming it as advantage.
>
I agree. And for the case of cpu scheduler, there are user group scheduler
and cgroup group scheduler, but Peter said he would like to see user group
scheduler to be removed.
> What do you mean by "The driver module can be replaced without stopping
> the system"? I guess you mean that one does not have to reboot the system
> to remove ioband device? So if one decides to not use the cgroup, then
> one shall have to remove the ioband devices, remount the filesystems and
> restart the application?
>
> With cgroup approach, if one does not want things to be classified, a user
> can simply move all the tasks to root group and things will be fine. No
> remounting, no application stopping etc. So this also does not look like
> an advantage instead sounds like an disadvantage.
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-22 0:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-13 4:05 dm-ioband: Test results Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-13 14:46 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-14 2:49 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-14 5:27 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-14 9:30 ` [dm-devel] " Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-15 17:04 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-16 12:56 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-16 13:32 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-15 4:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-15 13:38 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-15 14:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-15 16:17 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-16 2:47 ` [dm-devel] " Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-16 14:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-16 20:24 ` Nauman Rafique
2009-04-20 8:29 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-20 9:07 ` Nauman Rafique
2009-04-21 12:06 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-21 12:10 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-21 13:57 ` Mike Snitzer
2009-04-21 14:16 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-22 0:50 ` Li Zefan [this message]
2009-04-22 3:14 ` [dm-devel] " Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-22 15:18 ` Mike Snitzer
2009-04-27 10:30 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-27 12:44 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-27 13:03 ` Mike Snitzer
2009-04-20 21:37 ` [dm-devel] " Vivek Goyal
2009-04-21 12:18 ` Ryo Tsuruta
2009-04-16 20:57 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-17 2:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2009-04-17 2:28 ` Vivek Goyal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49EE69C2.9030908@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nauman@google.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox