Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753021AbYAPMGA (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:06:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751595AbYAPMFw (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:05:52 -0500 Received: from e28smtp01.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.1]:40050 "EHLO e28smtp01.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751301AbYAPMFv (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 07:05:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:35:33 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Andrea Righi , Peter Zijlstra , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-uid/gid I/O throttling (was Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling) Message-ID: <20080116120533.GB7166@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mail-Followup-To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Andrea Righi , Peter Zijlstra , LKML References: <47879A32.8060508@users.sourceforge.net> <3777.1200113861@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1200131197.7999.14.camel@lappy> <20080112105702.GC25388@balbir.in.ibm.com> <1200136245.7999.20.camel@lappy> <4789006C.2030804@users.sourceforge.net> <20080113044607.GA13633@balbir.in.ibm.com> <478CE41F.5010401@users.sourceforge.net> <20080116104541.GB25724@balbir.in.ibm.com> <13594.1200483031@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <13594.1200483031@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1471 Lines: 38 * Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [2008-01-16 06:30:31]: > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:15:41 +0530, Balbir Singh said: > > > Thanks for doing this. I am going to review the patches in greater > > detail and also test them. Why do you use configfs when we have a > > control group filesystem available for grouping tasks and providing a > > file system based interface for control and accounting? > > And here I thought "There's more than one way to do it" was the Perl slogan. :) > Yes, there are several ways to do it, but the discussion over the last year or so has been centered around control groups. We've discussed all approaches on lkml on there was consensus on using control groups. Please read the lkml archives for the discussion details. > An equally valid question would be: "Why are we carrying around a control > group filesystem when we have configfs?" (Honestly, I didn't know we *were* > carrying around such a filesystem - and quite likely Andrea Righi didn't > either...) Control groups is derived from cpusets and for those interested in grouping tasks for control, is the preferred method of providing control. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/