[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Regarding dm-ioband tests
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 07:01:46PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
> Vivek Goyal <> wrote:
> > > I think there are some advantages to dm-ioband. That's why I post
> > > dm-ioband to the mailing list.
> > >
> > > - dm-ioband supports not only proportional weight policy but also rate
> > > limiting policy. Besides, new policies can be added to dm-ioband if
> > > a user wants to control bandwidth by his or her own policy.
> >
> > I think we can easily extent io scheduler based controller to also support
> > max rate per group policy also. That should not be too hard. It is a
> > matter of only keeping track of io rate per group and if a group is
> > exceeding the rate, then schedule it out and move on to next group.
> >
> > I can do that once proportional weight solution is stablized and gets
> > merged.
> >
> > So its not an advantage of dm-ioband.
> O.K.
> > > - The dm-ioband driver can be replaced without stopping the system by
> > > using device-mapper's facility. It's easy to maintain.
> >
> > We talked about this point in the past also. In io scheduler based
> > controller, just move all the tasks to root group and you got a system
> > not doing any io control.
> >
> > By the way why would one like to do that?
> >
> > So this is also not an advantage.
> My point is that dm-ioband can be updated for improvements and
> bug-fixing without stopping the system.
> > > - dm-ioband can use without cgroup. (I remember Vivek said it's not an
> > > advantage.)
> >
> > I think this is more of a disadvantage than advantage. We have a very well
> > defined functionality of cgroup in kernel to group the tasks. Now you are
> > coming up with your own method of grouping the tasks which will make life
> > even more confusing for users and application writers.
> >
> > I don't understand what is that core requirement of yours which is not met
> > by io scheduler based io controller. range policy control you have
> > implemented recently. I don't think that removing dm-ioband module
> > dynamically is core requirement. Also whatever you can do with additional
> > grouping mechanism, you can do with cgroup also.
> >
> > So if there is any of your core functionality which is not fulfilled by
> > io scheduler based controller, please let me know. I will be happy to look
> > into it and try to provide that feature. But looking at above list, I am
> > not convinced that any of the above is a compelling argument for dm-ioband
> > inclusion.
> As I wrote in another email, I would like to make use of dm-ioband on
> the system which doesn't support cgroup such as RHEL.

For supporting io controller mechanism in older kernels which don't have
cgroup interface support, I think one needs to maintain out of the tree
module. Upstream does not benefit from it.

> In addition,
> there are devices which doesn't use standard IO schedulers, and
> dm-ioband can work on even such devices.

This is a interesting use case. Few thoughts.

- Can't io scheduling mechanism of these devices make use of elevator and
elevator fair queuing interfaces to take advantage of io controlling
mechanism. It should not be too difficult. Look at noop. It has
just 131 lines of code and it now supports hierarchical io scheduling.

This will come with request queue and its merging and plug/unplug
mechanism. Is that an issue?

- If not, then yes, for these corner cases, io scheduler based controller
does not work as it is.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-09 16:35    [W:0.111 / U:12.680 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site