Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752198AbZIIGFK (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2009 02:05:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751923AbZIIGFK (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2009 02:05:10 -0400 Received: from mail.valinux.co.jp ([210.128.90.3]:41422 "EHLO mail.valinux.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751895AbZIIGFJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Sep 2009 02:05:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:05:11 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20090909.150511.112608142.ryov@valinux.co.jp> To: dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: vgoyal@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com, agk@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nauman@google.com, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests From: Ryo Tsuruta In-Reply-To: <20090908170649.GC8828@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090908.120119.71095369.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <20090908134244.GA15974@redhat.com> <20090908170649.GC8828@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2.52 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1810 Lines: 40 Hi, Dhaval Giani wrote: > > > - 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 know that cgroup is a very well defined functionality, that is why dm-ioband also supports throttling per cgroup. But how are we supposed to do throttling on the system which doesn't support cgroup? As I wrote in another mail to Vivek, I would like to make use of dm-ioband on RHEL 5.x. And I don't think that the grouping methods are not complicated, just stack a new device on the existing device and assign bandwidth to it, that is the same method as other device-mapper targets, if you would like to assign bandwidth per thread, then register the thread's ID to the device and assign bandwidth to it as well. I don't think it makes users confused. > I would tend to agree with this. With other resource management > controllers using cgroups, having dm-ioband use something different will > require a different set of userspace tools/libraries to be used. > Something that will severly limit its usefulness froma programmer's > perspective. Once we create a dm-ioband device, the device can be configured through the cgroup interface. I think it will not severly limit its usefulness. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta -- 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/