[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
    On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 07:34:14PM +0900, Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
    > Hi,
    > > > It's possible the algorithm of dm-ioband can be placed in the block layer
    > > > if it is really a big problem.
    > > > But I doubt it can control every control block I/O as we wish since
    > > > the interface the cgroup supports is quite poor.
    > >
    > > Had a question regarding cgroup interface. I am assuming that in a system,
    > > one will be using other controllers as well apart from IO-controller.
    > > Other controllers will be using cgroup as a grouping mechanism.
    > > Now coming up with additional grouping mechanism for only io-controller seems
    > > little odd to me. It will make the job of higher level management software
    > > harder.
    > >
    > > Looking at the dm-ioband grouping examples given in patches, I think cases
    > > of grouping based in pid, pgrp, uid and kvm can be handled by creating right
    > > cgroup and making sure applications are launched/moved into right cgroup by
    > > user space tools.
    > Grouping in pid, pgrp and uid is not the point, which I've been thinking
    > can be replaced with cgroup once the implementation of bio-cgroup is done.
    > I think problems of cgroup are that they can't support lots of storages
    > and hotplug devices, it just handle them as if they were just one resource.
    > I don't insist the interface of dm-ioband is the best. I just hope the
    > cgroup infrastructure support this kind of resources.

    Sorry, I did not understand fully. Can you please explain in detail what
    kind of situation will not be covered by cgroup interface.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-09-24 16:57    [W:0.020 / U:6.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site