Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753449AbYAPTVR (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:21:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751560AbYAPTVI (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:21:08 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:41639 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751080AbYAPTVH (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:21:07 -0500 Message-ID: <478E5926.7070100@davidnewall.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:51:10 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: righiandr@users.sourceforge.net CC: David Newall , LKML , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling References: <47869FFE.1050000@users.sourceforge.net> <4787779B.1070100@davidnewall.com> <47878EC1.4000907@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <47878EC1.4000907@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 921 Lines: 26 Andrea Righi wrote: > David Newall wrote: > >> Andrea Righi wrote: >> >>> [I/O-intensive] processes can noticeably impact the system responsiveness >>> for some time and playing with tasks' priority is not always an >>> acceptable solution. >>> >>> >> Why? >> >> > > Well, I mean, we can't use 'nice' to grant less priority for the I/O > intensive app, because the I/O intensive app itself doesn't need a lot > of CPU. Instead, the I/O-bound app eats all the available I/O bandwidth, > that's a different issue. That's what I was thinking. Your original, "not always an acceptable solution," made me wonder if you were referring to something obscure. -- 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/