[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2
- From: Dhaval Giani <dhaval linux vnet ibm com>
- To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com>
- Cc: snitzer redhat com, peterz infradead org, dm-devel redhat com, dpshah google com, jens axboe oracle com, agk redhat com, balbir linux vnet ibm com, paolo valente unimore it, guijianfeng cn fujitsu com, fernando oss ntt co jp, mikew google com, jmoyer redhat com, Bharata B Rao <bharata linux vnet ibm com>, nauman google com, m-ikeda ds jp nec com, lizf cn fujitsu com, fchecconi gmail com, s-uchida ap jp nec com, containers lists linux-foundation org, linux-kernel vger kernel org, Andrew Morton <akpm linux-foundation org>, Andrea Righi <righi andrea gmail com>
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:13:49 +0530
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 05:56:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> So, we shall have to come up with something better, I think Dhaval was
> implementing upper limit for cpu controller. May be PeterZ and Dhaval can
> give us some pointers how did they manage to implement both proportional
> and max bw control with the help of a single tree while maintaining the
> notion of prio with-in cgroup.
>
> PeterZ/Dhaval ^^^^^^^^
>
We still haven't :). I think the idea is to keep fairness (or
propotion) between the groups that are currently running. The throttled
groups should not be considered.
thanks,
--
regards,
Dhaval
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]