lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2009-05-06 00:20:49]:

> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 May 2009 15:58:27 -0400
> > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> 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.
>
> FWIW I subscribe to the io-scheduler faith as opposed to the
> device-mapper cult ;-)
>
> Also, I don't think a simple throttle will be very useful, a more mature
> solution should cater to more use cases.
>

I tend to agree, unless Andrea can prove us wrong. I don't think
throttling a task (not letting it consume CPU, memory when its IO
quota is exceeded) is a good idea. I've asked that question to Andrea
a few times, but got no response.


--
Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-06 08:29    [W:0.164 / U:51.388 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site