lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
From
Hi,

> > It's possible the algorithm of dm-ioband can be placed in the block layer
> > if it is really a big problem.
> > But I doubt it can control every control block I/O as we wish since
> > the interface the cgroup supports is quite poor.
>
> Had a question regarding cgroup interface. I am assuming that in a system,
> one will be using other controllers as well apart from IO-controller.
> Other controllers will be using cgroup as a grouping mechanism.
> Now coming up with additional grouping mechanism for only io-controller seems
> little odd to me. It will make the job of higher level management software
> harder.
>
> Looking at the dm-ioband grouping examples given in patches, I think cases
> of grouping based in pid, pgrp, uid and kvm can be handled by creating right
> cgroup and making sure applications are launched/moved into right cgroup by
> user space tools.

Grouping in pid, pgrp and uid is not the point, which I've been thinking
can be replaced with cgroup once the implementation of bio-cgroup is done.

I think problems of cgroup are that they can't support lots of storages
and hotplug devices, it just handle them as if they were just one resource.
I don't insist the interface of dm-ioband is the best. I just hope the
cgroup infrastructure support this kind of resources.

> I think keeping grouping mechanism in line with rest of the controllers
> should help because a uniform grouping mechanism should make life simpler.
>
> I am not very sure about moving dm-ioband algorithm in block layer. Looks
> like it will make life simpler at least in terms of configuration.


Thanks,
Hirokazu Takahashi.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-24 12:37    [W:0.401 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site